Academic quality is dying in the race for certification
The recent controversy surrounding the display of Robodog at Galgotias University has generated widespread discussion on social media and in the mainstream media. On the surface, this issue appears to be about appropriateness, priorities, or campus culture, but in reality, it is merely a symptom of a deeper, structural crisis that has been brewing in India’s higher education system for years. The problem isn’t Robodog. The problem is what our universities have gradually become.
The past two decades have seen unprecedented expansion in higher education in India. The number of private universities, self-financed colleges, and degree institutions has grown rapidly. This expansion has often been presented as a result of “increased access to education” and a “demographic dividend.” However, when this expansion occurred without corresponding regulation, academic rigor, and accountability, quality has come at a cost. The result has been that quantity has increased, but quality has steadily declined.
Today, most—though not all—private universities and degree colleges in the country have become less centers of learning and more centers of degree distribution. Education is becoming a transaction rather than an intellectual process—degrees in exchange for money. Attendance, academic participation, laboratory work, and intellectual discipline are no longer mandatory but are subject to negotiation. What was once non-negotiable in higher education has now become flexible, weak, and distorted.
This decline is particularly worrisome in subjects where rigor is essential. Weakening theoretical studies is one thing, but the hollowing out of science education is far more serious. Today, students are receiving bachelor’s and master’s degrees in science without attending regular classes or receiving practical laboratory training. Experimental work—once the backbone of scientific training—has become a mere formality. Degrees are awarded, but competence is not ensured.
The consequences of this hollowness become apparent when students apply for jobs. A master’s degree in chemistry can’t explain basic scientific concepts. A commerce graduate can’t explain the basic concepts of debit and credit. A student with a management degree appears weak in problem-solving and critical thinking. These aren’t isolated examples, but rather common trends observed repeatedly by the industry.
Naturally, this leads to frustration among students and parents. When employment fails despite years of study and substantial financial investment, questions arise. Parents are right to ask why their children remain unemployed despite their education. This discontent often targets the government, which is accused of failing to create jobs. While job creation is a policy challenge, this discourse ignores an uncomfortable truth—that a significant number of graduates are actually unemployable.
This raises the fundamental question. If students lack the necessary knowledge and skills, how did they obtain the degrees that qualify them? Who permitted such institutions to issue certificates without ensuring academic quality? The answer lies in the regulatory framework for higher education.
Higher education in India is overseen by a number of ministries, departments, and regulatory bodies whose stated purpose is to safeguard standards, ensure quality, and maintain academic integrity. Accreditation systems, inspections, evaluations, and academic audits were created for this purpose. However, in practice, these processes often remain formalities rather than genuine evaluations.
Inspections are often pre-planned. Documents are embellished to fulfill formalities. Buildings and infrastructure are prioritized over teaching quality. Compliance is placed above learning outcomes. The actual academic experience of students, the quality of teaching, the rigor of examinations, and the culture of inquiry—these are rarely seriously and consistently monitored. As a result, institutions learn to “manage” regulators rather than improve education.
This regulatory laxity has led to a vicious cycle—institutions operate with minimal academic accountability, regulators maintain the appearance of oversight, and degrees continue to be issued. The price of this system is borne not by institutions nor by regulators—but by students, employers, and society.
Ironically, while the industry complains about a shortage of qualified human resources, the country grapples with a serious crisis of educated unemployment. This is not a contradiction, but a natural consequence of a system that prioritizes certification over competence. Companies are forced to spend heavily on retraining new employees, while young professionals struggle with a lack of confidence and career stagnation.
The biggest victims of this system are honest and talented students who, often due to a lack of options or misleading branding, end up in mediocre institutions. They work hard and want to learn, but ultimately, they are burdened more by the institution’s name on their marksheet than by their own abilities. Their individual merit is overshadowed by the lack of institutional credibility. This is not only unfair, but a waste of talent on a national scale.
It must be acknowledged that India still has some high-quality institutions that compete internationally. But they are the exception, not the rule. It’s worth noting that school education up to grade 12 remains relatively structured and controlled. As students enter higher education, oversight loosens, and expectations become blurred.
If this trend is not arrested in time, the long-term consequences will be dire. The social and economic value of degrees will decline. Public trust in higher education will weaken. The distinction between merit and mediocrity will become ever more blurred. Phrases like “university on every street” will become not satire but a description of reality, where universities will be everywhere, but education will not.
Now is the time for reform—and that reform must be honest and rigorous. Regulatory bodies must move beyond box-ticking and adopt outcomes-based, transparent, and unpredictable assessment. Teaching quality, learning outcomes, student engagement, and assessment integrity must be prioritized over buildings and advertising.
Institutions must be held accountable. Colleges and universities that consistently fail academically must face firm action—including seat reductions, course suspensions, or even revocation of accreditation. Higher education cannot be a business where failure carries no price.
Students and parents must also be more vigilant. Making decisions based solely on marketing, infrastructure, and branding compromises the future. Education is not a simple purchase, but an investment in intellectual and professional development—and wrong decisions have far-reaching consequences.
Ultimately, the purpose of higher education is not to dispense degrees, but to produce thinking, competent, and responsible citizens. Until this core purpose is restored, controversies like Robodog will continue to arise—creating a buzz for a while and then subsiding—while the real crisis remains.
We need systemic introspection, not cosmetic reforms. Because the crisis of education is never confined to the classroom—it quietly shapes the future of the nation.
