The following is an interview with Professor Santosh Mahapatra, discussing proposed changes that have taken shape through ongoing conversations in recent years. These reforms aim to better prepare students for the challenges of the next few years not only by making courses more relevant to emerging academic and industry needs, but also by reducing academic burden, easing anxiety, and making the learning experience more engaging, enjoyable, and meaningful. The proposed changes are expected to be implemented in the years to come
What may be changing in the first year curriculum?
There will be a few new programs coming in, particularly courses that will be relevant to current industry needs. We have a lot of evidence to claim that people are under stress because of course loads, especially for people who are in dual degrees, who struggle a lot, and we’re looking at reducing the workload on them.
We are also aware that in the first year, students are expected to take on courses that are unrelated to their degree and may not be useful in their future professional spaces. So we’re looking at narrowing down the common courses to only a semester’s worth of common courses. However, we will ensure that students still have the option of taking courses apart from their required courses, as per their interests.
Importance of an Interdisciplinary learning approach:
Courses like biology may not seem directly useful to a mechanical engineering student, but having some knowledge of biology can help engineers understand how their machines or projects impact the human body. For example, when designing a machine, an engineer with biological awareness will better consider its physical effects on people. Similarly, social science is important because all engineering ultimately serves human beings and has a social impact. Without understanding how society functions or how people respond, engineers might unintentionally create solutions that cause social problems or deepen divides. That’s why courses that at first glance may seem irrelevant to a particular degree are made mandatory. They are meant to help engineers think beyond technical aspects and design with human and societal needs in mind.
Changes expected in the First Year Course
There might not be a completely new set of courses, but there will definitely be some changes. One idea being discussed is allowing students to choose their degree specialization courses after just the first semester, instead of waiting an entire year. That shift could help students start focusing earlier on their areas of interest. When it comes to choosing courses beyond the Common Discipline Courses (CDCs), nothing has been finalized yet, but most likely, students will start selecting subjects more aligned with their intended discipline either during or after the second semester. The aim is to let them build toward their specialization earlier without overwhelming them.
Currently, students are split into groups with different sets of courses, but the plan is to have a single common curriculum in the first semester for everyone. This way, all students will begin with the same foundational courses, and the group-wise division may no longer exist. However, there is also discussion around giving some early direction based on student interest, like for those inclined toward biology, math, or physics. While the first semester would remain general, this idea would allow for slight subject-based variations in the second half of the year.
Some of the current first-semester courses are expected to stay, while others may be replaced. The exact structure hasn’t been finalized yet because key meetings are still pending. Once those happen, there will be more clarity on what students can expect.
Why the Curriculum Needs to Change
These changes are mainly for the upcoming batches. It was actually supposed to begin this year, but we haven’t been able to finalize it, so the plan is to roll it out next year. Curriculum renewal usually happens when the needs of society and industry shift. Right now, we’re dealing with big problems like population, climate, and industry demands, and they’re all interconnected. If we don’t prepare students to meet these challenges or help them gain qualifications that can contribute to a better future, there’s no point in sticking to the same old content.
The institute is likely thinking in that direction because if we just keep doing what we’ve always done, it’s not going to help. So now new courses are being introduced in many departments, keeping industry needs and students’ futures in mind. I heard there’ll be something on semiconductors next year. A lot of programs are coming in.
But if someone says, “Let’s shut down all departments and only do computer science,” like other colleges seem to be doing with the number of CS seats – that’s rubbish. That’s not a solution. If everyone does CS and nobody does anything else, how will people survive? Who’s going to build the buildings? Design the machines? Construct anything? Eventually, people will have to go back to those disciplines, because you can’t run society with just one kind of expert.
A lot of this comes from how students are pushed. When they’re unclear about what they want to do, they’re pushed into high-income paths. That’s been the trend for a decade now. But I don’t know if parents are doing proper research or thinking critically. Do they think about the future, about balance, about their child’s well-being? I really don’t know. They come under pressure, and some fall into depression. I honestly don’t understand how parents can destroy their own children’s lives like that. There have even been suicides recently here in Goa. Sometimes it feels like parents treat their kids like cash machines, and that’s not good.
Pressure, Priorities, and the CGPA Race
One of the issues we’ve noticed is the way certain courses are labeled as “good” or “not worth it.” That mindset pushes students into the CGPA rat race, where grades start to matter more than understanding what you’re learning and why you’re learning it. In that process, the actual purpose of education often gets lost.
Of course, the cost of education is a valid concern, and it’s understandable to think in terms of return on investment. But when financial outcomes become the only focus, it creates unnecessary pressure and a troubling approach to learning.
The changes we’re working on are meant to challenge that system. We want to create an environment where students prioritize genuine learning, feel less stressed, and still have space for meaningful social interactions along the way.That’s why you have the Sandbox incubator. It is there so that your ideas are considered and you get funding. Our kids have good funding for research. More minors will also be promoted, so you can venture into things. Let’s say you are in engineering, and you don’t like it at all, and you are struggling. At the end of it, you want to get into, let’s say, cognitive science. You can take a lot of courses in cognitive science when you leave the place, and then you can get into a master’s or PhD in cognitive science after four years.
Students often find themselves chasing credits, and that chase brings immense pressure. The assumption is that reducing credit loads might ease that burden, and there’s good reason to believe it could help. But a bigger question we should be asking is whether our expectations are even realistic to begin with.
Each of us has just 24 hours a day, seven days a week. With five demanding courses, students often end up needing to dedicate around 70 hours a week just to keep up. Once you factor in sleep and basic needs, there’s barely any time left to breathe. Life becomes a cycle of sleeping, eating, and completing tasks. This is essentially just a continuation of the grind many experienced in classes 11 and 12.
College is supposed to be more than that. But for many, that idea turns out to be a mirage. The pressure hasn’t gone away; it’s just taken a new form. And while school offered long-term bonds due to years of shared experience, college can feel isolating. Everyone seems hyper-focused on careers, placements, CGPAs, and financial outcomes. As a result, friendships here often feel fleeting, and meaningful connections are rare.
That’s exactly why the first-year experience is being reimagined – to break this cycle, reduce unnecessary stress, and make space for real learning and real relationships.
TRW Being Dropped or Redesigned
You will not have any English as a compulsory course in the first year perhaps. What we have proposed is one language course that you have to take over the four years. But that will be compulsory. You have to choose one language group across the four years, whichever you find useful. So, TRW will become one of those options, one course. And you can also take something like Public Speaking, Academic English, or Advanced Communicative English.
Rethinking the Math Curriculum
The math course structure hasn’t been finalized yet; it’s still being worked out. But the idea is that not everyone needs an extensive amount of math in their careers. So, for students whose fields don’t require much math, there’s a possibility that the number of math courses will be reduced. Since the overall credit load is also being brought down, some courses might be cut. More credits are being freed up, and more minors and elective options are being introduced. The core structure is shrinking slightly, so the number of core courses will be reduced, partly because it’s currently putting a lot of pressure on students. There’s also a proposed credit limit from the government that we’ll need to follow, and that will be factored into the redesign.
Does letting future batches choose subjects according to their strengths (which could potentially lead to higher CGPAs) act as competition to batches who didn’t have this advantage?
I believe you may not have to compete with the next batch directly. You’ll have your own set of job opportunities, and they’ll have theirs. You also have your own advantages as you’re taking a broader set of courses and handling a heavier course load, which might be valued more by some companies. Specialization isn’t always the most important factor; it really depends on how companies perceive it. What we’re trying to do is strike a balance so that everyone gets what they need and what they deserve. Placements will happen in your third year for both groups, so I think it will be sorted out by then..
General goals of making all these changes:
Preparing students for the future is one important goal. But equally important is reducing their academic burden and keeping them free from anxiety, and making the learning experience more engaging, enjoyable, and meaningful. The aim is to make courses more relevant not only to current academic needs but also to future challenges and industry demands. This includes offering more employment-oriented courses that align with skills companies are actively seeking.
Another key aspect is expanding career flexibility. For example, by allowing students to take one or two minors in different fields, they might discover new interests and even switch disciplines entirely. This can open doors to diverse career paths or even higher studies in a new field, say, someone from a computer science background applying for a PhD in cognitive science. That kind of transition is possible by clearing the relevant entrance exams.
This idea of cross-disciplinary flexibility is inspired, in part, by the American education system, where students can move between fields as long as they meet the necessary qualifications. Bringing similar flexibility here could reduce stress, as students would feel they have more options and control over their academic and professional journeys. We hope to implement these changes at least in the next few years to align with these goals.
The Journal Club 
Leave a comment