By Prof. D. Mukherjee
The University Grants Commission (UGC) released the Draft UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions in the Award of UG and PG Degrees) 2024 on Thursday, 12fth instant which, inter-alia, emphasizes flexibility and a multidisciplinary approach in higher education, attempts to align India’s education system with global trends. However, when contextualized against the stark realities of India’s labour market and the quality of its degrees, the policy raises critical concerns. With 40% of employed Indians under-skilled or under-educated and 13% of advanced degree holders jobless, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), the core issues of employability, skill alignment, and degree utility require deeper scrutiny. Moreover, India’s rank of 124th among 145 countries in the ILO’s global skills index underscores systemic deficiencies in infrastructure, pedagogy, and educational outcomes. A comparative analysis with the United States and China further highlights the gaps in India’s higher education system, particularly in addressing the demands of a rapidly evolving global workforce.
India’s employment crisis and the quality of its degrees reveal a stark disconnect between higher education and labour market needs. The International Labour Organization (ILO) reports alarming statistics: under-skilled workers and degrees with limited practical value, particularly in arts and humanities. Humanities degrees, while valuable for critical thinking, lack employable skills, growing from 6% in 2020 to 29% in 2024, exacerbating the issue. In contrast, the U.S. combines liberal arts with vocational training, producing versatile graduates, while China’s investment in STEM and technical education positions its graduates as global competitors. India’s emphasis on quantity over quality—evident in the proliferation of substandard institutions—dilutes degree value and worsens unemployment among advanced degree holders. The UGC’s policy of flexibility aims to promote multidisciplinary learning, credit transfers, and diverse educational pathways. However, implementation challenges persist. Without sufficient infrastructure, trained faculty, and robust assessments, flexibility risks weakening academic standards. For example, switching disciplines or stacking modular credits may lead to fragmented rather than cohesive learning experiences.
India’s faculty-student ratios, outdated teaching methods, and limited research funding hinder the policy’s success. By contrast, the U.S. supports flexibility with advanced facilities, interdisciplinary research, and skilled faculty, while China blends flexibility with rigor through academia-industry partnerships. To bridge the gap, India must focus on skill development, modernized pedagogy, and institutional quality to align its education system with global workforce demands.
To address the challenges of technological disruption, does India’s higher education system integrate technology at every level—from curriculum design to degree awarding processes is a valid question in the minds of the academicians. Online and hybrid learning models, digital credentialing, and AI-driven personalized learning pathways can enhance access and quality. However, the success of such initiatives depends on overcoming infrastructure bottlenecks, particularly in rural and underserved areas. The UGC draft policy’s emphasis on digital platforms is a step in the right direction, but it requires significant investment in broadband connectivity, digital devices, and teacher training. For instance, while India has launched initiatives like SWAYAM to promote online learning, their reach and impact remain limited compared to China’s comprehensive e-learning platforms, which are integrated with universities and industries. The United States has long pioneered online education through platforms like Coursera and edX, which not only provide access to high-quality courses but also offer industry-recognized certifications.
India’s push to increase higher education enrolment has led to a rise in institutions, many lacking proper facilities and qualified faculty. The focus on Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) often compromises quality. In contrast, countries like the US and China have expanded their systems while maintaining high standards through accreditation, performance-based funding, and strong industry ties. India’s challenge is shifting from quantity to quality. The UGC must focus on accreditation reforms, enforce quality benchmarks, and encourage investment in faculty development and research. Curriculum redesign should emphasize skill-building, entrepreneurship, and problem-solving to enhance degree relevance. The UGC’s push for liberal arts education aims to replicate the success of the US model, but Indian programs lack a skills-oriented approach. Unlike the US, where liberal arts colleges emphasize internships and experiential learning, Indian institutions fail to connect academic learning with employability. China combines STEM with humanities, ensuring students are prepared for diverse careers. In comparison, India must revamp its humanities education to include digital literacy and industry exposure. While the US excels in research, interdisciplinary education, and industry links, and China leads in STEM and technology integration, India’s higher education system struggles with quality and relevance. The lack of a strategy to integrate skills, technology, and market-oriented curricula limits India’s global competitiveness.
A recent announcement about a PhD titled “Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose” from the University of Cambridge ignited widespread trolling on social media. Instead of celebrating this unique scholarly achievement, the topic became a target for ridicule, revealing deeper societal biases about academia. The backlash underscores a pervasive belief that the value of research must align with its immediate economic utility. For India, grappling with similar challenges in higher education, this episode offers critical insights into balancing intellectual freedom with societal expectations. The criticism of “Olfactory Ethics” reflects a neoliberal perspective that equates education with economic output. This trend undermines the intrinsic worth of research, especially in topics perceived as “impractical.”
However, even niche studies like this provide insights into unexplored aspects of culture and society, such as how sensory experiences shape identity and politics. India faces a similar commodification of education, where disciplines like the humanities are devalued for their lack of direct job prospects. Rather than addressing systemic issues such as outdated curricula and weak academia-industry ties, blame often falls on non-vocational fields. India must prioritize intellectual diversity and resist the dominance of market-oriented thinking in academia. Bridging the gap between academia and public understanding, investing in the humanities, and valuing diverse research topics can create a more inclusive academic culture. By fostering curiosity and innovation alongside employability, India can ensure that its universities remain centres of meaningful inquiry and progress.
In India, education often emphasizes employability and practicality, with humanities and liberal arts facing criticism as “non-vocational.” This commodification of education risks sidelining intellectual diversity in Favor of job-oriented studies. India’s higher education system is under scrutiny for producing graduates ill-equipped for meaningful employment. The focus often blames disciplines rather than systemic issues like outdated curricula and inadequate skill training. A topic like “Olfactory Ethics” might face ridicule in this context, where market alignment dominates academic priorities.
The Cambridge incident prompts a vital question: Should research be judged solely on market relevance? History shows that seemingly impractical research, like early quantum mechanics, led to transformative discoveries. Similarly, humanities research uncovers insights that enrich culture and challenge narratives. India’s tradition of philosophy, literature, and art thrived because scholars explored unconventional ideas freely, unbound by constraints of immediate utility.
To address these challenges, the UGC and higher education regulatory bodies should adopt a pragmatic approach to curriculum overhaul and introduce mandatory skill-building modules, internships, and industry projects across all disciplines. Again, accreditation in real term instead of just documentation in files and papers and fixing accountability is sine-qua-non for ensuring quality benchmarks. Besides, technology integration in terms of expansion of digital infrastructure and promoting blended learning models, invest in training programs to equip faculty with the skills needed for multidisciplinary teaching, foster collaborations with industries to ensure that curricula align with evolving job market demands and last but not the least to increase funding for research and innovation and create incentives for innovation in pedagogy and curriculum design. India’s higher education system is at a crossroads. While the UGC draft policy’s emphasis on flexibility and multidisciplinary education has potential, its success depends on addressing fundamental issues of quality, employability, and infrastructure. By learning from the United States and China, India can chart a path toward a more skill-oriented, technologically integrated, and globally competitive education system. The focus must shift from merely awarding degrees to equipping graduates with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
NEP 2020 is attributed with essence to meet the contemporary requirements but India’s challenge in fully implementing policies like NEP 2020 lies in inadequate infrastructure and the overlapping responsibilities of the state and central governments, as education is in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. This often leads to delays, inconsistencies, and uneven implementation across states. To resolve this issue, a coordinated approach is necessary, where both the central and state governments align their priorities and resources. The central government can take the lead in creating uniform policy frameworks, while states can be empowered with adequate funding and autonomy to adapt these policies to local contexts. Establishing a centralized monitoring body could ensure consistent standards and quality across institutions nationwide. Additionally, public-private partnerships can help build the necessary infrastructure, especially in rural and underserved areas. By streamlining governance and resource allocation, India can ensure uniform education delivery with high standards across the country, facilitating the successful implementation of NEP 2020. India should concentrate on quality and simply not quantity if she aspires to obtaining elevated rank from 124th position out of 145 countries in ILO Report.
(The author is an Educationist, a Management Scientist and an Independent Researcher)