In its first major proposal since being appointed to run the Pune-based Film and Television Institute (FTII), the Gajendra Chauhan-led society has suggested that the institute be converted to a ‘Digital Media University’. According to the report, the document, distributed in the form of a Powerpoint presentation, says “One should consider and revisit the objectives of FTII without diluting the prevailing objectives”.

According to the plan, the institute will be restructured to have different schools such as School of Media Management and Communication, School of Performing Arts and School of Advertising Design. In all, there will be nine schools offering a total of 22 courses, including long-term courses like MBA in disciplines ranging from broadcast journalism to costume design. Each course will have 15-20 seats of which 30 per cent will be reserved for students from Southeast Asia and Africa.

Other proposals include students of MBA (Media Management and Research) taking up ownership of their projects as producers and supervising them in order to minimise delays, a feedback and assessment system to periodically monitor students’ performance and an “academic advisor” from the faculty for every student to monitor progress and provide guidance. For these proposals to be implemented, the institute’s objectives will need to be redefined by either the Governing Council or the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

FTII insiders were quoted as saying that the recommendations resemble those made in a controversial draft report submitted by Hewitt Associates in November 2010, which had also suggested starting short-term courses to help the institute generate revenue and become financially independent.

The document does not provide any details about the infrastructure and faculty needed to implement the proposals, both of which the institute currently lacks. Also worrying is the fact that the concept of a digital media university is much more broad-based than the film and television-focused institute that FTII currently is. Even though the document gives the assurance that no prevailing objectives will be diluted, one cannot but wonder what it implies by ‘revisiting’ them.