From Policy to Practice: Can First-Year MoL Candidates Deliver More Than Just Speeches?

Sri City: The Ministry of Learning (MoL) elections saw first-year candidates stepping up with bold ideas, ranging from expanding academic support systems to improving faculty-student communication and increasing career guidance opportunities. But while these speeches painted an inspiring vision of student-driven academic reform, the question remains: how much of this is actually feasible? MoL is tasked with representing student concerns regarding academics, but its constitutional authority is limited.

So, will these candidates bring about real change, or will they run into the same institutional barriers as their predecessors? Let’s take a closer look.

Abhinandan : Major Development or a Minor Setback?

Abhinandan (SIASUG2024-28), a prospective Biology and Psychology double major, presented an ambitious vision for the MoL, aiming to expand discipline-specific learning through collaborations with clubs and societies. He also plans to increase student awareness and use of support programs like tutoring and ILS. However, while his ideas sound promising, questions remain regarding the execution and feasibility of his plans. 

He also aims to bring in alumni participation for the Major/Minor Mela, stating that their insights will provide valuable guidance. However, Leher raised a key question:

“In the orientation week we already have alumni coming, how will his new measures be any different from that, and even if it is, how will he make sure that people show up for it?”

His response:"A lot of people attended the major minor mela on both days so I feel like this would be different as alumni would also give feedback about how they found the courses they completed itself and I do feel that people would attend this as when they start college, they are often undecided about their majors and may not pay attention to what the alumni says during the orientation. By the time of the major minor mela, they have both clarity on what they want to pursue, so they have a more guided place of reference."

Abhinandan was also questioned about his proposal to introduce a new course feedback system, despite Krea already having a course evaluation form at the end of each trimester. Given the low response rates for existing forms, how would he ensure participation? His response was, "I do realize that the current forms have very low responses and that is a huge problem. And that is why I have tried to research new ways with which we can incentivize extracting the feedback, so I have found methods such as making the form as simple and straightforward as possible, with being transparent…Strategies have proven to incentivize people to give feedback."

Additionally, his plan to standardize exams across sections raised concerns about interfering with professors’ academic autonomy. On this, he backtracked on his manifesto,"I have stated that I plan to standardize the exams in my manifesto, I realise that may not be possible. So now, what I'm essentially suggesting is to collect feedback from students and provide it to professors."

While his goals are ambitious, Abhinandan's ability to turn them into reality remains uncertain. His willingness to adjust his proposals suggests flexibility, but will he be able to provide a clear roadmap for execution? Future rounds will reveal whether he truly has a strategy or is still refining his plans.

Anika : A Good Sport Without Constitutional Awareness?

Anika (SIASUG2024-28), an outgoing, athletic, and extroverted candidate, took the stage with an emphasis on teamwork, student support, and collaboration with the Career Services Office (CSO). She proposed CV workshops, discipline coordinator meetings, and increased alumni interactions—all strong initiatives on paper.

However, when asked how often these meetings would be and how she planned to address the lack of student response to information coordinators, her response was:

"Students shy away from the Google form, if I were to talk about how frequent these meetings would be, I would say once or twice so that the students know what updates are going on around."

However, the biggest concern arose when Leher pointed out that CSO is not answerable to the MoL. If CSO rejected her proposals for CV workshops, what was her backup plan? Her answer was straightforward:

"I did not know that my apologies, but the only thing I can think about is just to keep pestering them."

While Anika’s leadership abilities and enthusiasm are evident, her understanding of MoL’s constitutional limits remains a question mark. Can she turn her ideas into action despite the bureaucratic constraints she may not have accounted for?

Gauriika : Ambitious but Logistically Unclear?

Gauriika (SIASUG2024-28), a prospective Economics major, focused on enhancing faculty-student relations, improving ERP and attendance understanding, and organizing career-oriented workshops. However, some of her more ambitious ideas, such as introducing peer mentorship programs and summer workshops, raised concerns about feasibility.

She was asked: How does she plan on hosting workshops during the summer break when many students won’t be available or willing to attend?

She replied, "Attending these workshops is a suggestion. This would save students a lot of time and would give them more time to think about what major and minor they actually want to pursue. So obviously it depends on what the needs and wants of the student body are. We can send out a survey and look at the responses and move ahead."

On her buddy system for peer mentorship, she was asked how she planned to balance the increased workload for third- and fourth-year students.

"At the end of every trimester, we can send out volunteer forms and people can sign up. If someone needs help, we can connect them to the volunteers. You can choose if you want it to be in pairs or one-on-one."

While Gauriika’s innovation stands out, her lack of a structured timeline leaves room for doubt. Her ideas are refreshing, but will they be practical?

Tanvi : Relatable Ease or Unpromising Ideas?

"Chronically Online" – Tanvi (2024-28), a Psychology major, positioned herself as approachable, interactive, and dedicated to student support. Her proposals included open meetings with discipline coordinators, collaboration with ILS, and assisting students with the shopping period.

However, her manifesto also included basic responsibilities like attending student government meetings, which are already mandatory.

When asked about her plans to continue discussions on winter trimester scheduling and how her approach would differ from the previous government, she stated:

"This is why I made no promises, 'cause this is the decision of the deans but I would try my best efforts to at least ask them to club the break in a way that we don't have to keep coming back to campus. Other than that, I would just say that the talks have already started and I would just like to continue these talks."

Tanvi is confident in her abilities, but her manifesto’s situational nature raises concerns. When her proposed ideas are not immediately needed, how will she use her position?

Her reply was , "So I have only mentioned that about ideas that are already there and currently don't need to be updated, maybe in the future."

Conclusion: Real Reform or Just More Talk?

The MoL elections bring forward candidates with strong aspirations but uncertain execution strategies. The true test will be whether they can navigate institutional limitations and deliver on their promises. Will this year’s MoL redefine student academic support, or will they, like many before, be limited by the system? Time will tell.

Leher will continue its election coverage until then, stay tuned!

(Written by  – Sattviki Mukherjee , On-ground coverage by – Naysha Kasat, Prashansa Pasari and Sattviki Mukherjee)