No cocktail, old wine in new bottle only!

After much criticism of its draft B Pharm syllabus, PCI has come out with a new revised syllabus. It created further confusion and made a somersault or about-turn from the position of earlier draft syllabus. When the pharmacy profession is expecting a better syllabus than the draft syllabus it has produced the same old syllabus with cosmetic changes and glaring makeup to look like a new one. Simply the old wine is filled in a new bottle with some colour and flavour added so that people can be made to believe it is a new one.

Dropping of undroppable 
PCI has gone back on its earlier announcement of splitting B Pharm course into industrial and clinical socialisations without even revealing the reason or justification for it. Why the splitting of the B Pharm course dropped as announced in the draft syllabus and even earlier many times by the PCI president? It means PCI is going to continue the same old pattern practiced for the last 70 years and more. Asking the students to ride two horses at a time and making them master of none. Going on stuffing new subjects, as science develops year on year, in a single course that too without increasing its duration is foolishness. We have seen the result of that in the last few decades but are not ready to learn lessons from that experience. How many times can one point out the examples of separation of oral science as BDS course from MBBS and innumerable branches in the BE course? Can a B Pharm graduate talk clinically for 15 minutes with doctors or even nurses after studying this new syllabus? They lack clinical knowledge and hence will shy away. Similarly, can these graduates handle an industry job confidently and independently?  PCI is repeating the same old mistake pharmacy elders did. Is it wise?
 
D Pharm for dropouts dropped!
One welcome feature of this revised syllabus is the proposal to give Diploma for the student leaving B Pharm course after 2nd year is dropped. At last good sense prevailed! When the National Education Policy (NEP) announced this idea a few years back this author had pointed out it is impossible for professional courses. In fact, the idea itself is bad because such dropouts may not be more than 5%. Ask any teacher, teaching any course, whether they saw more than 5% dropouts in his or her class. If some students dropout after 1 or 2 years of study the right thing to do is to investigate the reasons, helping them to continue by solving their problems through scholarships, free hostel mental support via counselling, etc. Instead, just for this few students, framing a syllabus thereby changing time tested course content and practice is ridiculous, I pointed out years back. After all this help if some students leave the course heaven will not fall!  Instead of solving the problem like this, which brain brought such an idea we wonder, definitely it may not be from an academician!
 
Admissions
Admission eligibility says students should have studied physics and chemistry compulsorily in plus two along with either math or biology. The syllabus is silent about remedial biology or maths classes. Also no slot is allotted for three subjects of 1st two semesters which lateral entry D Pharm students will be missing. College managements may find it difficult to draw a timetable for those subjects for these students given the tight schedule in 3rd and 4th semesters.
 
Peculiar syllabus
The syllabus listed essential subjects as electives and unimportant, unwanted subjects as compulsory core subjects. For example, in semester III Environmental Science and Ethics and universal human value are the main subjects whereas Food and Nutraceuticals and Food analysis, etc. which increases job opportunity unlike first two subjects are elective subjects!  Similarly, the syllabus has Intellectual Property Rights and patent laws as one of the main subjects. Though the basics of it are needed for a professional undergraduate, what is the need for such elaborate coverage for an undergraduate student? 1 or 2 chapters about it in any other subject will do. There are a lot of subtleties or nuances of the profession to teach, why deviate and waste precious time?

Elective subjects 
PCI has proposed a total of astonishing 33 subjects including practical as electives. How many colleges have faculty and infrastructure to teach all of them is a big question mark. Hence, it is going to be in paper and the students will be compelled to select one among the few subjects offered by the management. The problem with elective subjects is if one or two students opt for it the management will not offer it, as it requires investment in faculty and infrastructure. So, listing fantastic subjects is easier theoretically but implementation is very difficult practically. How PCI will solve it let us see. Thus, the revised syllabus is butter at the surface but bitter inside!
 
Internships 
Two internships are prescribed in the syllabus in 3rd and 7th semester, each 8 hours in a week on a single day for 15 weeks. Students can undergo this internship anywhere in industry, hospital or community pharmacy and contract research organisations. Where is the continuity in training? Which employer or colleague or trainer will respect or be interested in a trainee if he reports for training once in a week? Therefore, subjects in the semester should be taught and finished earlier and a continuous 15 days should be given for internship. Even this 15-day training is not sufficient to learn the professional practice fully but something is better than nothing!
 
Another problem with internships is if a college has an intake of 100 students how can they arrange internships for all of them? Will the PCI direct the colleges to have tie-ups with industries and/ or Hospitals? The syllabus is silent about it. If five students are sent to one institution for internship, for 100 students 20 institutions are required for one college alone! Is there so many institutions available around every college? Ultimately fake certificates will be generated and the colleges will close that chapter. Who is there to verify and check? If the PCI cannot ensure implementation of its syllabus, why these fancy proposals?

Building or killing standards
PCI has prescribed end semester examinations for one and half hour to 2 hours for 50 or 70 marks. Why can't they conduct it for two and half to 3 hours for 90 or 100 marks as in many arts colleges and universities? Also, the students are given the luxury of an improvement exam for sessional marks and the minimum pass mark in the annual exam is 50% “including” internal marks! There is no compulsion to score 50% marks separately in internal and annual theory exams. For example, if a student is given 19 out of 20 or 29 out of 30 as an internal mark by the management, he needs to score just 6 marks out of 30 or 9 marks out of 45 in theory in end semester exams for a pass! Super idea to ensure admissions and to produce talented technocrats is it not?

Revolutionary decision
Finally, if the PCI is not willing to split the B Pharm course, it should take a revolutionary decision. It can fully allocate Pharm D and D Pharm courses for clinical (Hospital and Community pharmacy) jobs and B Pharm for industry jobs. That is, instead of splitting a course and complicating the syllabus, allot the entire course for one specific job, just like MBBS, BPT and BSc nursing courses. Will the PCI accept it?  We don't think so! The conservative old timers in PCI have no courage or audacity to take such progressive and bold decisions, but they claim they made the course suitable for the 21st Century!