Multitude of M.Tech. programmes: a question of relevance!

The recent turf war between UGC and IIT has grabbed quite a few eyeballs and commentaries. While the power game is being played out at the upper echelons of the administrative set up governing higher education in India, it is worthwhile to have an inward view for a little introspection. Much has been said about the functional autonomy for IITs as being one of the prime reasons for the success of the IIT experiment --- one of the few success stories in independent India. The unstated assumption in this process is that the administrative setup within an IIT will have an objective assessment of the prevailing conditions and evolve suitably to address the needs. Of course, this freedom (or, autonomy) for self regulation comes with the rider that we act responsibly and do not abuse the trust reposed in the collective wisdom of the Senate.

I have so far attended only a few meetings of the Senate and I am aghast, to put it mildly, at how casually the business is actually conducted there. There is hardly any meaningful discussion on the agenda and the resolutions are adopted almost as proposed --- more or less in the same way as the bills are being passed in Lok Sabha these days without any discussions (the passage of bill for creation of Telngana state was the high point of this trend). Often we shy away from honest discussions and airing a divergent view on an issue for the fear of offending the sensibilities of our colleague(s) who had moved the proposal. The obvious problem is the inability to differentiate a professional matter from a personal one. This is a very alarming trend and without proper discussions the indifferent Senate risks the grave danger giving a shortchange to the objective assessment of an issue. Why is this trend worrisome? Sooner or later, if we don't put our house in order, our incapability (or, unwillingness) to do so will become apparent and then the day will not be far when an external regulator will be imposed as we had shown a lack of capacity (or, will) to regulate ourselves.

Since the recent ongoing tussle between UGC and IIT is related to the starting of various academic programmes in IIT, I wish to highlight the issue of proliferation of M.Tech. programmes in recent times. Several new M.Tech. programmes have been started in last couple of years which take in engineering graduates (or science post-graduates) from almost any discipline in the name of an inter-disciplinary programme. Subsequently, the courses are taught by faculty members drawn from four or five (or, even more!) different disciplines --- again in the name of inter-disciplinary programme. Sometimes a single course in a semester is taught by four or five different people from different specializations --- again in the name of inter-disciplinary programme. In order to put the issue in proper perspective, we have graduates in Electronics Engineering registering for a course on Repair and Retrofitting of Structures! Needless to say that the student will be unable to make any head and tail of the proceedings in the classroom, and yet, the student miraculously passes the course and earns the requisite credits for core course. The quality and technical competence of these poor students after completing the inter-disciplinary programme is anybody's guess. Obviously, in such a scenario it is rather difficult to have a common thread weaving through the courses of study to develop a broad vision of the field of study to see and critically analyse the big picture. We all know how effective is the teaching in short-term refresher certificate courses conducted in Continuing Education Center where a reasonably good amount of information is disseminated by a number of persons often without any obvious link between different lectures. So effectively, we have reduced our post-graduate M.Tech. education to the level of extended short-term certificate programmes! I wonder what the Senators were doing when they approved such programmes in the first place. Obviously, nobody thought it through the entire process and the decisions were taken just on the basis of some absurd way to justify an absurd diktat from the MHRD mandarins about the faculty-student ratio! Some M.Tech. programmes exist only to keep the faculty-student ratio within the prescribed norms. This is yet another number game and much has been debated about the pitfalls of number games. The administrators love to have an easily quantifiable number (index) to assess the quality. Little do they realize that such an index has to be an unbiased one if it is to be used as a decision variable. And then we run into the biggest paradoxes of all times -- it is impossible to measure anything! One can't measure anything without observing it first with the help of a suitable probe. The moment a probe is deployed, the system is not the same as the one we were interested in measuring! A performance indicator ceases to be a valid measure of performance as soon as it is defined because everyone begins to target it and in the process the measure becomes a biased one and hence unsuitable for use as a performance indicator!

It is high time that we took a rational view of the utility of so many M.Tech. programmes in the institute and not dilute the premium attached to the training received at an IIT. 

Student Evaluations and Statistical Hypothesis Testing

I had been thinking about the impact of increase in class strengths in higher education on the quality of performance evaluations and eventually award of grade to a student in a course --- an important exercise in separating the wheat from the chaff --- which assumes greater significance in our attempt to stretch the bottom threshold just to fill the available seats in our academic programmes. At a first glance, it appears that we have decreased the rigour in evaluations (both in taught courses and also dissertations).  Let us first talk about the taught courses, we shall take up the evaluation of dissertations later.

The 50% across the board increase in student intake in all academic institutions has necessitated accommodating a large number of candidates with questionable academic preparation in our post-graduate courses. Some of these students find it extremely difficult to cope with the (somewhat watered down) rigours of the academic programme and perform rather poorly in some courses. However, it is surprising to find same candidates performing at "Above Average" level in other courses and also at times managing an "Excellent" grading in dissertation. This, despite a common refrain from all during tea-time discussions about the decreasing level of aptitude and commitment of the graduate students. I find it rather difficult to reconcile the two assessments: the informal assessment is very poor quality of work and yet the formal assessment on the grade sheet reflects an "Excellent" grade for the dissertation!

The process of award of grade to a student is an exercise in making a decision whether a student has understood the subject, and if the answer is yes, then to what extent.  The performance of the student is tracked through a variety of assessments throughout the semester leading to a final score for the award of a grade. This final score is referred to as "the test-statistic" in the parlance of statistical hypothesis testing: a standard tool of decision making based on statistical inference. In its simplest form, the test involves formulating a "Null Hypothesis" (H0), which is considered to be the working rule until it can be established by way of some evidence that it is not true and should be abandoned in favour of the "Alternate Hypothesis", typically denoted by H1. The formulation of an appropriate null hypothesis is the most crucial part of the test and it is stated in a form which makes it easier to test for its falsity.  The process of student's evaluation can be stated as:

The null hypothesis, H0: the student knows the subject and deserves a passing grade, 

and

The alternate hypothesis, H1: the student does not know the subject and consequently does not deserve a passing grade.

So the process of evaluation begins with the assumption that the student knows the subject unless it can be proved to be otherwise. The variety of assessments are then aimed at trying to falsify this assumption. This has an important bearing on the way the examinations are set up --- it is important that the student's are examined thoroughly about the subject and the tests should be designed to falsify the null hypothesis. Since nothing in this world is perfect, the hypothesis testing too has its fair share of flaws and two types of errors are possible:

1. Type I error: reject the null hypothesis H0 when it is true --- the false alarm, and 
2. Type II error: do not reject the null hypothesis H0 when it is false --- the missed alarm. 

The probability of Type I error is related to the "significance level" of the test while the "power" of test refers to the probability of not committing Type II error. Obviously, eliminating both types of errors is impossible.  The chances of Type I error can be reduced by expanding the range of  "acceptable range" of the test-statistic but that increases the chances of Type-II error where the null hypothesis might not be rejected even when it is not true. The significance level, i.e., the probability of Type I error is decided beforehand and is kept at the largest tolerable level (typically 0.1, 0.05, or 0.01) consequently the "acceptable range" of test-statistic is established (larger the probability of Type I error smaller is the acceptable range for test-statistic and hence smaller chances of Type II error) . In the context of student evaluation this translates into designing an examination that is consistent with the choice of the probability of Type I error. An easy examination along with a small probability of Type I error, say, 0.01, makes it almost impossible to reject the null hypothesis of all students knowing the subject and thereby increase the probability of Type II error of a student getting a passing grade even if (s)he may not have a passing understanding of the subject. A study of the patterns of grades awarded in recent times indicates that we might have been committing Type II errors (missed alarm) in several cases by awarding passing grades to the undeserving candidates while trying to minimize the Type I errors (false alarm). While a possibility of Type I error might result in a temporary setback for a few candidates, it is good for the academic programme of the institute if it prevents a Type II error of awarding degrees to the undeserving which might have long term implications in hurting the academic standing of the institute. If we do not take care in minimizing Type II errors (even if it is at the cost of slightly increased chances of Type I error) then the doomsday may not be far off when the industry would cease to recognize the premium of an IIT degree. 

There has been a steady decline in the quality of M.Tech. dissertations with very few leading to scholarly publications which was the primary objective of increasing the duration of dissertation from one semester to two semesters. Year after year, we have a horde of students graduating with "Excellent" grade for their dissertations but not leading to any scholarly publication. This begs a little introspection --- probably there is a need to recalibrate our scales of grade and be a little more objective about these evaluations. It appears that quite a few of these students with "Excellent" grades in dissertations do not have a CGPA more than 7.0-7.5 after the two semesters of course work --- roughly mapping to "Average" performance. I agree that there could be some exceptional cases where the effort put in dissertation work might outshine that in a regular course work --- but such cases are rare and for all that it is worth, the CGPA at the end of two semesters of course work gives a fairly well indication of the student's potential at present. The "Excellent" grade in dissertation leads to artificial inflation of the CGPA at the end of the academic programme. It may be better to switch to a Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grading of dissertation to retain some objectivity of CGPA as a measure of students' academic performance.

Declining Morals and Ethics in Higher Education

Recently, one case of impersonation has been reported in the recently concluded final examinations of the Spring Semester, 2013. Apparently, a student of B.Tech. I Yr. had arranged to have someone else write the examination of EC-101A Computer Systems and Programming on his behalf. The person who actually took the examination had forged the candidate's signatures on the attendance sheet. The matter was brought to light by some students raising questions about the sanctity of the examination and evaluation system. Some students have also alleged that the impersonation was not limited to this single case rather there were multiple instances of impersonation in the final examination of at least two more courses this semester. This kind of lack of oversight and supervisory control in the conduct of academic affairs is a direct fall-out of the steep increase in the student intake in recent years. It is now impossible to have a personal one-to-one interaction with the students which goes a long way in forging a teacher-student bond and encourage more engaging discussions in the classrooms. This was, probably, what Late Prof. P.V. Indiresan (formerly of University of Roorkee, and later Director IIT Madras) had in mind when he had filed a PIL in Supreme Court against the Ministry's decision to increase the student intake by 54%.  It is an alarming disregard for the rule of the land that these students have shown. Impersonation is a criminal offense for cheating, forgery and fraud, punishable with 7 year jail term,  under Indian Penal Code of 1860. It should make us all halt in our tracks and ponder about the purpose of education being imparted in our institutions of higher learning. Are we helping create a generation of cheats and slackers?

It may be very easy and probably more convenient to brush this issue aside calling it an aberration. However, the long-term implications of such ostrich-like attitude are horrifying, to put it mildly.  First, the concept of level-playing field for all can be thrown away. Students with strong management skills can always manage to get other to write their examinations for some professional appearance fees! In any case, we are producing more of managers than engineers/technocrats if the level and kind of participation of our students in the Technical Festival - Cognizance is any indication. We might as well forego evaluation of students' performance in examinations. The grades for the course can possibly be awarded on the basis of some demonstrable quality of "managing" examinations. After all, is that not what the managers are supposed to do and judged for --- the skill in getting the work done? Whatever may be means adopted for the purpose --- the ends always justify the means! Scoring well in examinations is just another kind of work which can be possibly outsourced to someone with real technical skill but probably lacking in management skills!  Does it make any sense to evaluate the answer scripts of students which had been outsourced? Who is getting the reward (Grades) and for whose efforts? The entire edifice of higher education will crumble if this case is allowed to fall through the cracks within the system. Imagine, how convenient would be our life as course instructor if we did not have to bother about evaluating tutorials, answer scripts, etc. Even the classroom lectures can be dispensed with and a live streaming of recorded lectures can be fed into students' halls. The faculty members can then devote their time and energy to more quantifiable metrics of research projects and publications.

I presume that most of us will agree that the scenario presented above can not be the way forward if we are serious about building our reputation as a force to reckon with in the field of technical education on the world stage. Therefore, this malaise has to be nipped in the bud. The first thing that we should do is to explore the possibility of roping in a Forensic Laboratory to collect random handwriting samples of all B.Tech. I Yr. students and have it cross-checked with the writing on the answer scripts of the final examination. This may be the only way to nab the culprits whose identities are not known. The culprits when caught should be handed an exemplary punishment including filing  a formal police complaint for cheating, fraud and forgery so that no student in future will dare to cross the fine line between acceptable and unacceptable. Further, the students should be asked to put their thumb impressions in the attendance sheet as well as on the answer script. It should then be possible to cross check the authenticity of the candidate at a later date by using the thumb impression database available with JEE during admissions. These small measures will go a long way in preventing such acts of cheating and ensure better compliance.

The State of Engineering Education in India

A recent survey has concluded that more than 75% of the engineers graduating from a myriad of technical institutes, engineering colleges and deemed universities are not employable. This claim has been contested, quite understandably so, by the Chairman, All India Council for Technical Education. The Chairman, AICTE says that the NASSCOM survey is misleading and if more than 75% were really unemployable than there would have been a massive unrest on the streets. He, however, concedes that the majority of engineering graduates are underemployed. Of course they are underemployed, Mr. Chairman! One doesn't really need an engineering degree for tele-marketing which is more or less what the work in call centers involves. I am right now looking at a few graduate engineers from CSE/IT background who have no idea of algorithms and can't write a decent piece of functional code for Gaussian elimination! Another post-graduate in Electronics and Communications has no clue about the sampling theorem! No wonder then that the industry finds such engineers unemployable. Naturally, these people are content with desktop publishing/data entry jobs for a "salary" of Rs. 10000/- per month.

Most of the young graduates have only one immediate aim: secure a job and support the family to climb the social ladder. Unfortunately, it is extremely demoralizing for the youth to find the hard way that the promised job security of an engineering degree is a myth. The mad rush for engineering degrees has led to mushrooming of technical institutes of dubious quality often run by fly by night operators. Many parents send their ward to study engineering in these institutes after payment of hefty fees which often eats into their savings of lifetime. These parents are taken in by the claims of 100% placement of graduating students in reputed companies. What they don't realize that a majority of these "hired" graduates are soon fired following a dismal performance in the in-house test after the induction programme in the firms that these unsuspecting souls join. This failure statistic does not make it to any advertisement brochure: for a failure is orphan. These fired graduate engineers then take up jobs as desktop operators, etc. merely to avoid the social stigma attached with a jobless engineer. How long can this continue? Had it not been for the BPO industry, we would have had a massive unrest on the streets. And I am not even referring to the unhealthy work hours of the so-called graveyard shift and its long-term impact on the social fabric. A song by Gulzar in his 1971 film "Mere Apne" succinctly captures the emotion:

"Haal-chaal theek thaak hai
Sab kuchchh theek thak hai
BA kiya hai, MA kiya
Lagta hai woh bhi ainvey kiya
Bas kaam nahi hai baki sab theek thaak hai!"

In 1970s, there was a proliferation of graduates and post-graduates thanks to the state funded cheap college education. But these degrees were not even worth the cost of paper on which those were printed as far as their job potential was concerned. The situation today is similar, except that we may now replace BA and MA with B.Tech. and M.Tech., respectively. However, these professional qualifications come at a price: often a lifetime's savings of ambitious parents. It is nothing short of a calamity for a parent to discover after spending his hard earned money to buy a professional degree for his ward that it has no market value. This simmering discontent is a time-bomb waiting to explode unless urgent corrective steps are taken by the powers that be. It is not that the decision makers are not aware of the problem. The Minister for Human Resource Development is on record saying that about 90% of the privately funded universities do not meet the basic requirements for a university (albeit this was in reference to non-technical courses). 

Yet another study has claimed that in 2012 the arts and science graduates were offered more jobs than engineering graduates. May be this is a good trend as it will prevent a mad rush for cheap (not inexpensive!) engineering degrees on offer and only those with an aptitude for engineering will opt for a rigorous programme. 

On the conviction of 7 Italian scientists by an Italian court for failing to predict earthquake.

It is interesting to see everyone getting worked up to defend the convicted scientists by a judiciary which probably lacks in scientific temperament and hence unable to interpret the disclaimers implicit in scientific research and publications. The examples abound, for example, "My results suggest that expected value of PGA (or, spectral acceleration at period T, for that matter) is X (but while I want this result to get published, I'll neither defend this result in any public scrutiny or discussion forum nor shall I take any stand on this matter on public policy matters)."

It is easy to plead innocence and take a detached view from the high pedestal of scientific study. But of what use is a scientific study (especially if undertaken on taxpayer's money) if the authors themselves are so noncommittal about the veracity of the results? I wonder if it has occurred to my learned colleagues that the scientists in question might have secured a huge amount of taxpayers' money as a research grant for predicting earthquakes? And the public there might be furious at having been cheated out of their money by the false promises held out by such seismologists. Earthquake prediction is a very interesting topic and never fails to touch a chord with the common population. Why, even our former president Dr. APJ Kalam was so fond of earthquake prediction that he made it a point to mention it in his convocation address at IIT Roorkee despite being advised against it. Little do people realize that earthquake prediction is not a tenable policy for earthquake disaster mitigation. Even if one were able to predict an earthquake with 100% accuracy, it does not help in protecting the investments in the region. Only a sound earthquake resistant design policy and compliance can ensure that. 

It is good that this conviction has provided an opportunity for public debate on the relevance of scientific research. About 10 years back after the 2001 Kutch earthquake, massive investments in setting up of network of seismological instruments were recommended by a committee of European/American experts invited by the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India. The primary reason for this was seismological instruments can record small earthquakes which occur frequently and we may not have to wait for indefinitely for recording strong motion data. Realizing the futility of the exercise, one of our colleagues had written to various stake holders about this enormous wastage. Fortunately, a moderate earthquake at Chamoli in 1999 had provided us with enough data to support our assertion that the characteristics of ground motions change significantly with the size of the earthquake. Whatever design recommendations may be inferred from the analysis of low-magnitude small earthquake data, may be widely off the mark for the case of strong earthquakes against which the protection is to be sought. But the decision makers who dole out public money for scientific research chose to ignore the hard facts and went ahead with massive procurement of seismological instruments from European/American manufacturers on the recommendations of European/American experts!  

It is time for the scientific community to pause and think about the relevance of the studies being undertaken in the name of scientific research!

Higher Education: Aims and Objectives

 In response to Mr. S.R. Durai Eswaran's letter published in Reader's
 Mail section of New Delhi edition of The Hindu dated November 07, 2005
  
   Reader's Mail (The Hindu)
   http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/07/stories/2005110705770300.htm
  

                      IIT Roorkee's ways

   I joined the M.Tech course in the Earthquake Department of IIT Roorkee in June 2004 after clearing GATE with a score of 92.85. GATE-qualified candidates are eligible for an MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development) stipend of Rs.5,000 per month. Then I came to know that in the Earthquake Department during the previous year the professors had detained and sent out 50 per cent of the students registered with the department (including many with GATE scores above 99), wasting their one precious year. They were asked to pay back the total stipend to get their GATE score card back!

   As I was not ready to take the risk of wasting one precious year, I left that course and took another course in the Civil Department in the self-financing category. I thus lost my monthly stipend of Rs.5,000 because of the arbitrary policy of the Earthquake Department. How can they detain 50 per cent of the students thus?

 S. R. Durai Eswaran,
 F-105, Jawahar Bhawan, 
 IIT Roorkee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is indeed heartening to note that the students at IIT Roorkee feel
free to voice their opinion publicly on issues pertaining to academic
matters of the institute. This proves that I.I.T. Roorkee has
succeeded in creating an open environment on the campus in line with
Sri Rabindranath Tagore's dream (as envisioned in his celebrated
poem--Gitanjali). Unfortunately, Mr. Durai Eswaran has chosen to
imbibe only the freedom of expression and seems to have given the
emphasis on knowledge and tireless striving a complete go by. Mr.
Durai Eswaran has not presented the facts correctly and seems to have
concluded hastily on the basis of inadequate/wrong data.

We wish to put forward the following points to ponder in view of Mr.
Durai Eswaran's comments.

Factual Errors:

The figure of 50% of the registered students being sent back is
not correct. The academic programme of a total of 6 students
out of 21 registered that year was terminated at the end of
first semester on account of poor academic performance. The
Grade Point Average of these students was in range 1.3-4.67 as
against the institute requirement of a minimum of 5.00 (out of
a maximum of 10.00) for continuation of programme. Such a low
grade point average clearly indicates these students had
serious difficulty in coping with the academic workload and had
performed poorly across the board in all courses including one
offered by the Department of Mathematics. This is particularly
so when the evaluation for a course in I.I.T. is done
continuously over the entire semester and is not based on the
performance in just one final examination. Given the heavy
subsidy that goes into funding of the higher education, the
students are expected to earn their assistantships--not claim
it as a matter of right!

Difference between Undergraduate and Postgraduate Education:

Each milestone in the process of learning is associated with a
set of target skills and values. While the undergraduate
education is all about development of problem solving skills
with the application of existing knowledge, the emphasis of
postgraduate education is on the development of analytical
ability and capability to develop new knowledge and
methods/techniques. Familiarity with the fundamental concepts
in science and engineering is considered as a given in
postgraduate education. It is the students' lack of
appreciation of the objectives and aims of postgraduate
education that leads to a miserable performance in postgraduate
courses even though they had demonstrated excellent problem
solving skills (a.k.a. high GATE scores).

High GATE score: Is it a valid measure of intellect?

The GATE score is just an index for the purpose of admissions
to academic programmes. It is--like any other objective measure
of intellect--not without its limitations. Like the Joint
Entrance Examination for admission to undergraduate programmes
in I.I.T., several coaching centres provide intensive coaching
to secure high score in GATE--an examination to test the
problem solving skill achieved at the end of undergraduate
programme. This does not necessarily imply that a person with
high GATE score will have very good analytical skill.

We are thankful to Mr. Durai Eswaran for giving us an opportunity to
address our concern at root of this problem of non-performance of
supposedly good students in some postgraduate programmes. The quality
of undergraduate technical education in the country has been declining
steadily over the past several years. Most of the students that we
admit to our postgraduate courses are completely blank about the
fundamental concepts. This complete lack of analytical ability is
possibly caused due to encouragement of learning by rote in most of
the universities and colleges in this country. The picture is rather
gloomy as the academic performance of a student in most of the
universities and colleges is measured on the basis of scores in final
examination which encourages memory driven approach to taking
examination--not quite sustainable in the long run!

Finally, we would like to point out that mere securing admission to an
institution of higher learning does not guarantee the award of a
degree from that institute. The students have to earn their
degrees/diplomas and having earned them they should feel proud of
themselves!!

Inequitable distribution of teaching responsibility: Follow up

Some time back I had raised the issue of apparent disparity in the teaching load of faculty members in academic departments of the institute and the rules for sharing of teaching responsibilities amongst faculty colleagues. I did

not receive even a single response pointing to a regulation governing the

distribution of teaching load! Subsequently, I collected information about

the distribution of teaching load in a typical semester in various

departments and prepared a summary which is appended at the end of this

text. In working out these numbers, I have given a greater weightage to

the lecture hours followed by tutorial and practicals in that order to

decide the listing under Minimum/Maximum load. Further,

the hours devoted to B.Tech./B.Arch. projects have not been counted in as

this information was not available for all departments. While statistics such

as these provide some basis for comparisons they donot protray the whole

picture. A major omission is the latent effort put in by the course instructors

in core courses with large under-graduate population. The massive effort that

goes in the evaluation of students registered for these courses is not

reflected in these cold figures of weekly contact hours (L+T+P).

As far as the total contact hours are concerned, the disparity is most
glaring in the Architecture and Planning Department. The Professors put
in about 8 Hours (L+T+P) per week on average while Asst. Professors put in
about 18 Hours on average. Moreover, the Professors are primarily involved in
teaching of Post-Graduate courses while the youngsters take up the bulk of
under-graduate courses. Regarding practicals/tutorials in architecture, I
can say from my limited exposure to architecture during my undergraduate
training that these are not "canned" practical sessions based on
experimentation, observation, data collection and interpretation. Each student
needs to develop an independent solution for a set of design constraints. In
this respect the supervisory control and guidance to nurture the individual
thought process is very important leading to an increased involvement of the
course instructor/tutor.


In chemistry department, most of the senior colleagues engage only 1 or 2
lectures per week. Their contact hours are beefed up by a corresponding
increase in the practicals where---I am sure---they must be ably supported
by their research/teaching assistants. The younger colleagues are required
to put in more lecture/tutorial hours in comparison.

The younger colleagues also put in relatively more teaching effort in
Civil, Chemical, Mech. & Ind. Engg., Mathematics and Physics as the summary
suggests, whereas the electrical and electronics and computer engineering
departments appear to follow the policy of equal sharing amongst all faculty
members. However, the senior colleagues in electrical engg. and mechanical
& industrial engg. are primarily involved in postgraduate courses whereas
the undergraduate courses are handled by the younger colleagues. This
trend of senior colleagues distancing themselves from undergraduate
teaching is unfortunate in my opinion. The young and impressionable minds
of the undergraduates deserves the experienced handling of the senior
colleagues.

I hope that this summary and analysis will lead to an in-house discussions
and rationalization of the sharing of teaching responsibility between faculty
colleagues within a department.




    Weekly contact hours (L-T-P) of faculty members in some departments

Architecture and Planning
-------------------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                  3-2-3             6-1-1          4.2-1-3
Assoc. Professor      1-2-6             3-2-6          2.4-1.7-6.7
Assistant Professor  2-5-9             4-6-6          2.7-3-11.4

Civil Engineering
-----------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                 0-3-2              4-3-0           2.3-2.2-1.9
Assoc. Professor      3-0-6              4-7-0           3.1-4.2-2.7
Assistant Professor  2.5-0-8            4-8-0           3.0-4.9-2.8

Chemical Engineering
--------------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                  3-0-3              3-0-6         3-0.5-4.8
Assoc. Professor      3-0-9              6-3-4         4.4-1.6-6.2
Assistant Professor  5-2-7              6-0-10        5.5-3.6-5.8

Chemistry
---------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                  1-2-8              4-3-4         2-1.6-7.6
Assoc. Professor      3-0-10             5-3-4         4-1.5-7
Assistant Professor  2-4-10             5-5-6         3.4-7.6-7.7

Electrical Engineering
----------------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                  3-0-4              6-2-8           4-2-6
Assoc. Professor      3-2-2              6-3-6           4-2-6
Assistant Professor  3-0-8              5-6-4         3.1-2.2-8.2

Electronics and Communication Engineering
-----------------------------------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                 3-1-5                 6-0-5          4.7-1.2-3.4
Assoc. Professor     3-4-2                 6-2-3          4-3.3-2.7
Assistant Professor 3-3-5                 6-5-0          5-3.2-2.4

Mathematics
-----------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                 5-2-0              6-2-0           5.8-2.2-0
Assoc. Professor     6-3-0              6-3-0           6-3-0
Assistant Professor 8-3-0              9-2-0           8.4-2.6-0

Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
-------------------------------------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                 3-1-4              6-2-2           3.3-2-4.2
Assoc. Professor      3-2-6              6-3-6           4.4-3.4-4.8
Assistant Professor  3-1-8              9-2-8           4.9-1.8-7.1

Physics
-------
                         Minimum            Maximum         Average
Professor                 4-0-2              4-2-3           4-0.9-2.9
Assoc. Professor     4-0-4              5-0-4           4.3-0-4.3
Assistant Professor 5-0-6              6-1-4           5-1-5.5