UGC’s draft rules: pros and cons

The guidelines offer promising opportunities while they also have serious challenges, writes P John J Kennedy

The proposed changes in recruiting teachers and Vice-Chancellors (VCs) under the University Grants Commission (UGC) draft regulations of 2025 have sparked a debate about potential implications for higher education.

The UGC says the proposal aims to align with global trends to enhance flexibility, foster inclusivity, and promote excellence in faculty recruitment and career progression. However, a critical evaluation reveals both promising opportunities and serious challenges from the perspectives of students, teachers and institutions. While the proposal includes several areas, only a few key proposed changes likely to have a greater impact on institutions are discussed in this article.

Firstly, opening vice chancellors’ positions to public administration and industry professionals could diversify leadership and introduce innovative management practices. This aligns with NEP 2020’s goals of interdisciplinarity and global competitiveness. Leaders with non-academic expertise might enhance financial sustainability, employability strategies, and industry collaboration, enabling universities to adapt to global trends and technological advancements.

However, the lack of an academic foundation is a concern. Non-academic leaders may struggle to grasp academic culture’s emphasis on intellectual freedom, critical inquiry, and long-term scholarly goals. This may also invite political interference, potentially compromising institutional autonomy and leadership integrity. A few state governments and teacher organisations have raised this. Striking a balance between managerial efficiency and academic values is crucial and demands caution.

Secondly, replacing the Academic Performance Indicators (API) system with a broader evaluation framework for teachers is a mixed blessing. By valuing contributions in areas like Indian Knowledge Systems and regional languages, the UGC aims for a more holistic and inclusive metric.

However, implementing such qualitative criteria carries risks. Without clear benchmarks, subjective assessments may undermine fairness and academic standards. Institutions may struggle to ensure consistency without robust evaluator training and transparency. Additionally, candidates from less-resourced backgrounds might face disadvantages due to limited mentorship or institutional support access.

The changes could lead to enriched learning experiences for students, the key stakeholders. Faculty with diverse professional backgrounds might bring real-world insights, bridging the gap between academic knowledge and practical applications. Such exposure could prepare students for contemporary challenges in an increasingly interconnected world. Promoting teaching and research in regional languages could enhance accessibility and inclusivity, benefiting students from varied linguistic backgrounds.

Yet, there is a danger that market-driven priorities might dominate, sidelining traditional disciplines crucial for holistic education. Students—particularly those aspiring to academic careers—could be disoriented by frequent policy shifts and evolving qualification criteria. This uncertainty risks undermining confidence in the system, especially in less-resourced institutions where discrepancies in teaching quality could be aggravated. Additionally, the focus on employability and industry alignment may skew academic curricula toward short-term market demands at the cost of fostering critical thinking and foundational knowledge.

Risks of the new approach

The broader implications of the changes also underline a critical tension between equity and quality. While the reforms aim to democratise access and align with national objectives, they risk diluting academic standards if not carefully implemented.

For example, appointing VCs with non-academic backgrounds might prioritise short-term goals over long-term intellectual growth, undermining the core mission of universities. Similarly, an overemphasis on inclusivity without adequate support for capacity building could compromise the quality of education and research output. The challenge lies in creating an ecosystem where inclusivity and excellence are mutually reinforcing.

Aligning these changes with the NEP 2020’s vision requires significant institutional investment and cultural shifts. Training administrators and faculty evaluators and establishing clear policy frameworks and regular reviews to identify and address emerging issues is a must.

Institutions will also need mechanisms for stakeholder feedback, ensuring that policies remain dynamic and context-sensitive. Additionally, checks and balances should be introduced to safeguard against external influences and politicisation, ensuring that appointments are merit-based and transparent. Without such safeguards, the reforms risk becoming patronage tools rather than progress.

The potential benefits of these reforms for stakeholders are undeniable. Students stand to gain from a more dynamic and industry-relevant education system, while institutions might benefit from diverse leadership and interdisciplinary approaches. Teachers, too, could find opportunities for professional growth and recognition in a more holistic evaluation system.

However, these advantages hinge on thoughtful implementation and a commitment to academic excellence. Policymakers must prioritise stakeholder consultation and iterative refinement of guidelines to ensure that inclusivity and flexibility do not come at the expense of quality and fairness. 

(The author is a professor and dean at Christ University, Bengaluru)