Top 4 major factors leading to failure of Technical Institutes in cultivating Programming & Problem-Solving Skills!

By Dr. Rayees Dar?

Data Scientist

The state of programming education in technical institutes across India, and particularly in Kashmir, is facing a crisis. Having taught in a university setup for five years, I have witnessed how the current system is failing to teach engineering students one of the most fundamental skills required in today’s job market—programming and problem solving. Institutes fail to produce proficient engineers. Despite the growing demand for software engineers, many graduates lack the practical knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in the real world, skills that are at the core of engineering. The reasons for this are manifold, but they primarily stem from a flawed evaluation system, poor teaching methods, lack of practical exposure, and the limited time allocated for meaningful learning.?

1. Lenient Evaluation: A Disservice to Learning?

One of the most significant contributors to the failure of technical institutes is the lenient evaluation system. In many of the state universities, there is an unspoken understanding among teachers that examination papers should be prepared in a way that at least 70% of students pass. As a result, exams are often filled with rote-learning questions like, "What are data types?"— questions that test memorization rather than understanding or problem-solving abilities.?

But the problem doesn't stop at poorly designed exams. Even if a student’s performance is subpar, the practice is often to pass them regardless. The reasoning? It reduces the extra work involved in reevaluating and retesting. Many teachers feel pressure from upper management to ensure that students pass, even when they clearly don’t deserve to. There is this strange rule that Universities follow that they want a high pass percentage. While the intent is pure, the execution is flawed and outdated—focused more on pushing students through rather than fostering true learning.. In some cases, teachers who resist this pressure are labeled as "too strict" or "ineffective" if a large portion of the class fails—even though many students are simply not putting in the effort. There is this sword of Damocles hanging over the teacher that if he is doing the evaluation honestly, he will be questioned about the pass percentage and hence implying him being ineffective teacher. How come students are failing in only this subject? This is a valid question, but the inference is again lazy.?

This leniency creates a cycle of complacency. Once students realize that minimal effort will still result in a passing grade, they have no incentive to push themselves. They know that the system will eventually cave in and pass them, either through a lenient teacher, retakes, or departmental pressure. What’s worse, this complacency trickles down to junior students, who learn from their seniors that they don’t need to work hard. The result is a continuous pipeline of students who graduate without truly learning. Gauge the complacency from the fact that Engineering students have to only study a day before exam for passing despite engineering being one of the toughest courses.??

2. Ineffective Teaching Methods

Another major issue is the way problem solving is taught. In most universities, programming subjects are evaluated through theory-based exams, with little emphasis on practical execution. This is a gross oversight. Programming is not a subject that can be mastered through theory alone—it requires hands-on practice, debugging, and problem-solving in real-world scenarios.??

Since this subject is a first for majority of the students, it takes time to learn and gain a hang of it. It requires constant mentoring and hence access to the tutors is paramount. However, this is not pragmatic since each faculty member is burdened with other subjects and endeavours.??

Ideally, programming should be evaluated primarily through practical assignments, quizzes, and projects, where students must write and execute code. This evaluation should be continuous and acts as a feedback throughout the course. However, this creates an additional workload for teachers, especially in institutes where most of the teaching staff is on contractual terms and already overburdened. Even in well-staffed institutes, evaluating practical assignments and providing continuous feedback to students requires a system of teaching assistants (TAs), which many institutes lack.?

The absence of such support systems leads to a superficial approach to teaching programming, and it is taught as any other subject out there. Students complete minimal, theoretical work, and neither they nor the faculty engage in the deep, hands-on learning necessary to build true programming skills.

3. Lack of Clubs and On-Campus Activities?

Another missing ingredient in many universities, particularly in Kashmir, is the presence of extracurricular coding clubs and activities. When I was at IIT Mandi, I witnessed how students learned more from club activities and coding competitions than from formal classroom teaching. These clubs provide students with a space to explore technologies, practice coding, and engage with peers in a self-driven way, which is crucial for developing problem-solving skills. These clubs become extremely critical given the nature of problem-solving and its requiring near ubiquitous access to mentors and TA’s which as discussed above is not available in most institutes.?

However, in Kashmir the university or college campuses are n

ot residential, even the ones which are legally mandated to be so. This means that majority of the students and faculty live outside the campus and spend precious time in travelling. Therefore, even if some institutes have the coding clubs, the non-residential nature of the campuses render them ineffective, since most activities of the clubs happen outside the teaching hours. This leaves students with very few opportunities to engage in programming outside of the formal curriculum. As a result, they miss out on a critical avenue for practical learning and skill development.?

4. Inadequate Time for Learning?

Lastly, there is simply not enough time allocated to teach programming and problem-solving. Problem-solving is a skill that can only be developed through practice and iteration, and the one hour per day typically allocated to programming subjects is woefully insufficient. Given the complexity of the subject matter, students need more time to experiment, fail, and learn from their mistakes—something that is impossible in such limited time.?

Again, this points to the need for teaching assistants who can help students outside of regular class hours or the clubs where they can learn from seniors and peers. Without this extra support, students are often left to struggle on their own, and many simply give up when faced with challenging problems.?

Addressing the Gaps with ELAF?

Recognizing the shortcomings of traditional technical education, we launched ELAF—a program specifically designed to address these gaps and produce real engineers. ELAF aims to equip students with the practical problem-solving skills they need to excel in any CS field.?

At ELAF, students undergo rigorous, hands-on training with real-world projects and continuous assessment through assignments, coding exercises, and mentoring sessions. We understand the importance of mentorship and therefore in addition to having industry-trained professionals as teachers, we pair each student with a TA who will guide them throughout the course.?

We are committed to equipping aspiring engineers with the essential skill sets needed to thrive in today's competitive corporate landscape. By making problem-solving, critical thinking, and real-world application the core of our program, we go beyond traditional education methods. Our graduates emerge as top talents, ready to take on complex challenges and excel in dynamic engineering roles, shaping them into innovators and leaders of tomorrow.