Delhi: JNU's MSc Biotech programme gets flexible exit, entry options

The School of Biotechnology (SBT) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is introducing multiple level entry and exit options for their MSc Biotechnology programme from the academic session 2025-26, the first round of admissions of which is ongoing. This comes as an effort to align the programme with the framework of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. JNU. (PTI)
Under the new framework, students who complete one year of the two-year master's course will be awarded with a Postgraduate Diploma in Biotechnology and students who complete two years will get a postgraduate degree, the dean of SBT, Balaji (goes by first name), said on Friday.
'Students will not be applying separately for the diploma. Instead, those who complete the first year of the M.Sc. program can choose to exit after the second semester with the diploma, provided they meet all academic requirements and inform the department in advance,' Balaji told HT on Friday.
He added, 'In addition to this, a new one-year M.Sc. (Research) program is now being offered as a lateral entry option. This flexible program is open to students who have either completed the first year of an M.Sc. in Biotechnology at another institute or finished a four-year undergraduate degree with a research component.'
However, Balaji clarified that the admission to this programme depends on seat availability from the regular two-year M.Sc. course.
'We have a total of 30 seats available in the MSc programme as of now. So if 24 seats have been filled in the first year and we have seven seats left, then those seats will be offered in lateral entry in the second year,' he clarified.
The second year will focus less on theory and more on research, as students will engage in full-time, year-long research project, working closely with faculty on contemporary problems in biotechnology and allied areas.
'To foster critical thinking and discussion, the program includes a vibrant Journal Club, where students analyze recent scientific papers and engage in peer debate, an experience that builds scientific literacy, public speaking, and analytical skills,' Balaji said.
Registration for the first round of admission to SBT is scheduled to end on June 26.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hindu

14 hours ago

• The Hindu

A critical look at UGC's recent regulations for Ph.D. guides, in the light of NEP 2020

Academic research in India is once again at a pivotal crossroads. In a recent directive, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has stipulated that research supervisors for Ph.D. candidates must belong to institutions with recognised postgraduate research centres. This move, intended to ensure quality control and institutional accountability, comes at a time when the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is advocating the democratisation and decentralisation of research — starting right from undergraduate programmes. The apparent contradiction between these two directions raises fundamental questions about the future of research in India. Quality vs. accessibility On the surface, the UGC's intention seems well-founded. Research is a rigorous activity demanding access to institutional infrastructure, peer support, and ethical oversight. Restricting supervisors to PG research centres ensures that minimum academic standards are upheld. However, this measure inadvertently sidelines a vast cohort of capable researchers and teachers from UG colleges, who may possess strong academic credentials, extensive research experience, and proven track records but are now deemed ineligible solely due to institutional affiliation. The policy runs the risk of converting what should be an intellectually inclusive process into an exclusive club, centred around a few institutions with 'recognised' status. Is research potential a property of an institution or an individual? Individual merit This brings us to a crucial philosophical and pedagogical question: Should research supervision be institution-centric or individual-centric? There are several instances where professors in non-research PG colleges have published in high-impact journals, received fellowships, and mentored scholars informally with great success. By denying these individuals the ability to formally guide Ph.D. students, the system fails to recognise merit and performance outside bureaucratic boundaries. Ironically, NEP 2020 emphasises promoting research from the undergraduate level, allowing students to engage in high-level inquiry and innovation as early as the fourth year. How, then, do we reconcile this vision with a restrictive policy that limits who can guide future researchers? Repercussions The implications of this policy could be far-reaching. First, it may lead to overcrowding of researchers under a few supervisors in PG research centres, reducing the quality of mentorship. Second, it may demoralise qualified teachers in UG institutions who are eager to contribute to national knowledge production. Third, it creates a two-tiered system; those who are 'research-worthy' and those who are not, based not on talent but institutional status. Additionally, the assumption that only PG centres have the necessary infrastructure is increasingly outdated in the digital age. With open-access journals, virtual laboratories, collaborative tools, and global research networks, much of the academic work today transcends physical campuses. Need for balance A more nuanced framework is urgently needed: one that upholds academic quality while actively nurturing individual research talent. To begin with, merit-based accreditation should be introduced, allowing experienced faculty from non-PG research centres to independently apply to be Ph.D. guides based on academic credentials, such as publication records, citation indices, or leadership in funded research projects. In place of blanket bans on entire categories of institutions, regular institutional audits should be conducted to assess and certify research readiness in undergraduate colleges, ensuring that deserving institutions are not unfairly excluded. Additionally, collaborative mentorship models could be adopted, allowing for joint supervision where a researcher has a primary guide from a UG institution and a co-guide from a PG research centre, thereby encouraging mentorship diversity and inter-institutional learning. Policies must also be realigned with the NEP 2020's research-first vision, which calls for building research mentorship capacity across the academic spectrum — including UG colleges — instead of restricting it. Finally, investment in digital infrastructure is essential, enabling equitable access to research databases, tools, and collaborative platforms for all accredited institutions, thereby decentralising research power and making knowledge creation more inclusive. Research is not the privilege of a few but the responsibility of all in the academic ecosystem. UGC's commitment to quality is laudable, but it must not come at the cost of inclusivity and innovation. As India moves towards becoming a global knowledge hub, it is essential to ensure that the structures we build empower every capable mind, not just the ones housed in designated research centres. The strength of a nation's research culture lies not in institutional labels but in the intellectual spirit it chooses to nurture. The writer is a Professor and Head of the Department of English, M. J. College, Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

Hindustan Times

a day ago

• Hindustan Times

Delhi: JNU's MSc Biotech programme gets flexible exit, entry options

The School of Biotechnology (SBT) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is introducing multiple level entry and exit options for their MSc Biotechnology programme from the academic session 2025-26, the first round of admissions of which is ongoing. This comes as an effort to align the programme with the framework of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. JNU. (PTI) Under the new framework, students who complete one year of the two-year master's course will be awarded with a Postgraduate Diploma in Biotechnology and students who complete two years will get a postgraduate degree, the dean of SBT, Balaji (goes by first name), said on Friday. 'Students will not be applying separately for the diploma. Instead, those who complete the first year of the program can choose to exit after the second semester with the diploma, provided they meet all academic requirements and inform the department in advance,' Balaji told HT on Friday. He added, 'In addition to this, a new one-year (Research) program is now being offered as a lateral entry option. This flexible program is open to students who have either completed the first year of an in Biotechnology at another institute or finished a four-year undergraduate degree with a research component.' However, Balaji clarified that the admission to this programme depends on seat availability from the regular two-year course. 'We have a total of 30 seats available in the MSc programme as of now. So if 24 seats have been filled in the first year and we have seven seats left, then those seats will be offered in lateral entry in the second year,' he clarified. The second year will focus less on theory and more on research, as students will engage in full-time, year-long research project, working closely with faculty on contemporary problems in biotechnology and allied areas. 'To foster critical thinking and discussion, the program includes a vibrant Journal Club, where students analyze recent scientific papers and engage in peer debate, an experience that builds scientific literacy, public speaking, and analytical skills,' Balaji said. Registration for the first round of admission to SBT is scheduled to end on June 26.

NDTV

2 days ago

• NDTV

61 Lakh Clear Science Stream In 2024; Centre Urges Expansion Of STEM Education

New Delhi: In 2024, a total of 61 lakh students cleared the science stream, marking a 16% increase from 52.4 lakh in 2022, according to the latest data from the Ministry of Education. In response, the Union Education Ministry's Department of School Education and Literacy (DoSEL) is urging an increase in seats and faculty in STEM programmes, given the significant surge in students clearing their Class 12 science exams. The move aims to align with shifting academic trends and growing aspirations, especially among girls. A senior DoSEL official said, "An additional 9 lakh students passing science means we need proportional increases in STEM seats and faculty in higher education institutions to support this growth." This trend calls for better school planning, enhanced teacher training, and improved recruitment at the state level. Despite this progress, challenges remain as dropout rates continue to hinder advancement. Ministry data shows that in 2024, around 26.6 lakh regular Class 10 students did not progress to Class 11. Of these, 4.43 lakh did not appear for the exams, while 22.1 lakh failed. A similar trend was seen in Class 12, where approximately 24.7 lakh students were unable to complete their higher secondary education due to failure or non-appearance in exams. Though this marks a 47% improvement compared to 2013, it continues to obstruct progress toward achieving a higher Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER). To address this, DoSEL is exploring ways to expand open schooling, focusing on the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS), and urging states to consider merging separate Class 10 and Class 12 boards into a unified board structure to streamline examinations. However, NIOS's effectiveness remains limited due to low penetration in many states. In 2024, 6.98 lakh students enrolled in Class 10 through open schools, but only 3.4 lakh passed. For Class 12, 7.9 lakh students appeared-2.84 lakh through NIOS-with pass rates standing at just 54% for Class 10 and 57% for Class 12. These low pass percentages remain a concern for open boards. The ministry report noted, "States like Delhi, Rajasthan, and Haryana have shown lower failure rates in open schooling. Other states are being encouraged to adopt similar models to help more students complete their education." NIOS plays a vital role in offering a second chance to students who either fail board exams or are unable to continue formal education. Officials said both NIOS and state governments are being encouraged to establish more open schools to provide these students with alternative pathways to complete their education. "Open schooling is a critical solution for academic continuity, especially for students who face disruptions due to personal, social, or financial reasons," said a senior ministry official. The move is part of a broader strategy to improve retention and completion rates under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. India currently has 66 school examination boards-3 national and 63 state boards. Of these, 33 boards account for 97% of total student enrolment, while the remaining 33 boards serve just 3% of students. A total of 48 boards conduct exams at both the secondary (Class 10) and higher secondary (Class 12) levels. The ministry has called for improved school-level planning, increased teacher recruitment, and enhanced state-level training initiatives.