Statement — An increasing number of graduates produced by Indian universities are unemployable.\n\nCourses of Action —\nI. Colleges and institutes of higher learning should be given greater autonomy to decide the course content.\nII. World-class foreign universities should be encouraged to set up campuses in India.

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: if only I follows

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Employers increasingly report that many graduates lack job-ready skills. A classic “course of action” question asks which proposals logically address the stated problem directly, feasibly, and within the locus of control of the stakeholders mentioned. Here, the problem concerns curriculum–industry relevance inside Indian higher education systems.



Given Data / Assumptions:


  • Observation: many graduates are unemployable.
  • COA I: grant colleges more autonomy to decide course content.
  • COA II: invite world-class foreign universities to open Indian campuses.
  • Reasonable assumptions: curriculum flexibility can allow faster alignment with market skills; foreign campuses may raise competition and options but are not guaranteed to fix domestic unemployability at scale.


Concept / Approach:
A valid course of action should be relevant, practicable, and likely to mitigate the root cause. Unemployability often stems from rigid curricula, slow academic governance, and weak industry alignment. Increasing academic autonomy (I) can tighten the curriculum–skills loop, enable industry-led electives, and speed updates—directly targeting the cause. Encouraging foreign campuses (II) is tangential: it may create pockets of excellence but does not necessarily reform the broad domestic system or ensure affordability/access for most graduates.



Step-by-Step Solution:


1) Map problem → cause: curriculum misalignment, low agility.2) Map COA I → remedy: autonomy empowers timely, local curriculum reform.3) Map COA II → indirect effect: limited scale, market segmentation, regulatory lag.4) Conclude: only I directly and sufficiently follows.


Verification / Alternative check:
I remains valid even if foreign campuses arrive; II alone cannot ensure system-wide employability improvements. Therefore I is necessary and sufficient; II is neither necessary nor sufficient in this frame.



Why Other Options Are Wrong:


Only II: too indirect and uncertain in breadth/impact.Either/Both: treats a nonessential idea (II) as equally valid.Neither: incorrect; I is a targeted systemic lever.


Common Pitfalls:
Equating prestige (foreign universities) with scalable solutions; overlooking governance agility as a root cause.



Final Answer:
Only I follows.

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion