Outdated Curriculums, Outdated Faculty: The Crisis Facing Engineering Education Today (Even in so Called 'futuristic' Private Universities)

In recent years, the issue of unemployment?and the struggle of graduates in the job market?has been the subject of countless discussions. Numerous articles, both academic and journalistic, have identified a handful of recurring themes: outdated curricula, a lack of skills, and the persistent disconnect between industry and academia. However, after reviewing hundreds of these articles, it became clear to me that none were addressing the real root cause?of these problems. The discussions merely scratched the surface, leaving the deeper challenges unexplored.

Determined to uncover the true barriers faced by our graduates, I decided to take matters into my own hands and conduct a detailed study. My goal was to provide a data-driven analysis that would reveal the systemic issues contributing to the mismatch between education and employability. To do so, I used the NIRF 2024 ranking?as a baseline to identify the top 100 private universities and autonomous institutes across India offering Engineering programs, with a particular focus on the Computer Science and Engineering?(CSE) department—a field currently in high demand.

I deliberately chose private universities?because of their claims to be futuristic?and more industry-aligned?than their public counterparts. By analysing institutions from all regions of India—North, South, East, and West—I sought to develop a comprehensive understanding of the broader ecosystem of challenges?these institutions face. Importantly, I chose not to name any specific university or institute, as my intention is not to target individual brands but to shed light on the systemic issues?within the education sector as a whole.

I deliberately chose private universities?because of their claims to be futuristic?and more industry-aligned?than their public counterparts.

To gain meaningful insights, I divided my study into three key areas:

1. Current Academic Landscape: Outdated Practices and the Growing Disconnect
2. Board of Studies: Outdated Representation and Lack of Industry Relevance
3. Student Burden: Certifications Outside the University

Following these findings, I will offer ideal solutions?that could help universities realign their academic approach to better serve the needs of their students and the industry. This includes a shift toward industry-driven learning?and a futuristic composition?of the Board of Studies that ensures universities remain competitive in the fast-evolving world of technology.

Current Academic Landscape: Outdated Practices and the Growing Disconnect

The engineering education landscape, even among the top NIRF-ranked private universities?in India, reveals significant gaps between academic training and industry needs. To assess this, a detailed analysis of the Computer Science and Engineering?syllabus from various private universities was conducted. These universities are often perceived as being more agile?and industry-oriented?compared to public institutions. However, upon closer examination, a different reality emerged.

The syllabus was carefully reviewed, and the courses offered across these institutions were demarcated into four broad categories

The syllabus was carefully reviewed, and the courses offered across these institutions were demarcated into four broad categories:

1. Core and Important Subjects

2. Demanding and Futuristic Subjects

3. Core Subjects Needing Modernization

4. Non-Demanding or Outdated Subjects

1. Core and Important Subjects

These are the foundational subjects that provide essential knowledge for students across any technology-related discipline. These subjects form the basis for understanding advanced topics and are indispensable for building strong problem-solving skills and technical fundamentals.

• Examples: Engineering Mathematics, Data Structures, Algorithms.
• Why Core and Important?: These subjects remain critical as they teach essential concepts applicable across various fields. Even though the industry evolves, these subjects provide a bedrock upon which further knowledge can be built.

2. Demanding and Futuristic Subjects

These are the subjects that focus on cutting-edge technologies?and emerging trends?that will dominate the job market over the next decade. These courses are aligned with high-demand industry needs?and equip students with the skills necessary to thrive in rapidly evolving fields.

• Examples: Machine Learning, AI, Cybersecurity, IoT, Cloud Computing.
• Why Demanding and Futuristic?: As industries increasingly adopt automation, data analytics, and artificial intelligence, these subjects are becoming critical for future employability. Universities must include these subjects in their curriculum to ensure students are ready for the jobs of tomorrow.

3. Core Subjects Needing Modernization

While these subjects are fundamentally important, they require significant updates?to keep pace with modern technological advancements. The content, teaching methods, or tools used are often outdated?and no longer fully reflect the current state of the industry.

• Examples: Operating Systems, Database Management Systems, Communication Theory.
• Why Needing Modernization?: These subjects provide the technical backbone of many fields, but they are taught using outdated methods or concepts. For instance, traditional databases must now cover NoSQL?and cloud-based solutions. Updating these courses will ensure that they remain relevant to current industry practices.

4. Non-Demanding or Outdated Subjects

These are subjects that are either no longer relevant to the modern job market or have become less critical due to the advent of newer technologies. Continuing to prioritize these subjects wastes valuable learning time and resources for students.

• Examples: Electrical Engineering Materials, Physics of Semiconductors (in a software-oriented syllabus).
• Why Non-Demanding or Outdated?: These courses may have been crucial in the past, but the industry has moved on to newer technologies and concepts. Teaching these outdated subjects results in students being ill-prepared for the demands of today's job market.

The Startling Findings

After categorizing the courses across seven private universities, the results were alarming. Out of a total of 80 subjects?analysed across the Computer Science and Engineering?department, 68% of the courses?were either outdated or in dire need of modernization.

The breakdown is as follows:

• Core and Important Subjects: 5%
• Demanding and Futuristic Subjects: 25.93%
• Core Subjects Needing Modernization: 49.38%
• Non-Demanding or Outdated Subjects: 15%

These statistics reveal a significant disconnect between the current curriculum?and the future needs of the job market. The majority of subjects that students spend time learning are either outdated or need substantial modernization to keep pace with technological advancements. This raises a critical question: Are universities really preparing students for the future, or are they clinging to an outdated past?

To access the whole study conducted for Each Subject please Click Here

Board of Studies: Outdated Representation and Lack of Industry Relevance

An equally concerning aspect of university governance is the composition of the Board of Studies, which plays a crucial role in shaping the curriculum, deciding academic priorities, and approving syllabus changes. A deeper analysis of several universities revealed that the Board of Studies?is largely composed of individuals who are disconnected from the fast-evolving technological landscape. This lack of representation from new-age companies?working on futuristic technologies?significantly hampers the ability of universities to adapt to the rapid advancements seen in fields like AI, Data Science, IoT, and Cybersecurity.

A Critical Deficit in Representation

In my review of profiles of board members from multiple top-ranked private universities, I found that only 5%?of the members are professionals from new-age technology companies?that are pioneering the innovations of the next decade. This is alarming, especially in an era where hands-on expertise?and real-world experience?in emerging technologies are indispensable for designing a relevant curriculum.

The board members were categorized into the following broad groups and composition of the Members as per Category:

• Experienced Academicians with PhDs (Outdated PhD)?– 10%

Many of the members who hold PhDs earned their doctorates over 10 years ago, which means that much of their research and knowledge may no longer be aligned with the current needs of the industry. While their contributions are valuable in terms of academic experience, relying heavily on such members can lead to stagnation in syllabus development, as they may not be familiar with the latest tools, trends, and technological advancements.

• Professionals from New Age Technology Companies?– 5%

These are the people driving the next wave of technological innovation. Their presence on the board is crucial for ensuring that the curriculum includes the latest industry trends, as they bring with them insights into futuristic technologies?like AI, blockchain, autonomous systems, and cloud computing. However, their underrepresentation (just 5%) means that many decisions are made without input from those who truly understand the current and future demands of the job market.

• University Alumni in Professional or Academic Roles?– 5%

Alumni can bring valuable perspectives, especially if they have graduated in recent years and are working in relevant fields. However, this group’s representation on the board is also extremely limited. Alumni who are working in industry-relevant roles?could provide feedback on how the university’s curriculum did or did not prepare them for the real world, but their voices are often drowned out by the more traditional members of the board.

• Non-Relevant Members (Non-Domain Experts, Excluding University Management)?– 45%

Shockingly, 45%?of the members of the Board of Studies were found to be non-relevant—individuals with little to no direct connection to the specific technological domains?or academic expertise?required to shape an evolving curriculum. While some of these members may have managerial experience or backgrounds in other disciplines, they lack the deep technical knowledge or insight into emerging trends?that are critical for shaping modern education.

• Senior Academicians, Industry Experts, and Related Representatives?– 35%

This group is essential, as it brings in seasoned professionals from both academia and industry who have deep domain expertise. However, they may not be at the cutting edge of futuristic technologies. While their contributions are significant, 35% representation is not enough?to ensure that the curriculum remains modern and forward-looking.

The current composition of university Boards of Studies?is failing to keep pace with the rapid technological advancements shaping the future job market. With only 5% representation from new-age technology companies, universities are missing out on crucial insights that could drive innovation in their curriculums. The dominance of outdated PhDs?and non-relevant members?further exacerbates the problem, leaving students unprepared for the demands of modern industry. To remain competitive, universities must restructure their boards, bringing in industry professionals, global experts, and recent alumni?who can ensure the curriculum is forward-thinking?and aligned with future technologies. Only by modernizing the decision-making body can universities close the gap between academic learning?and industry needs, ultimately ensuring that graduates are fully equipped to succeed in the workforce of tomorrow.

Student Burden: Certifications Outside the University

The disconnect between academic training?and real-world industry needs?has placed an undue burden on students, particularly in technology-driven fields?like Data Science, AI, and Cybersecurity. Rather than graduating fully equipped for the job market, many students find themselves having to seek external certifications?just to meet the expectations of potential employers. This reliance on external learning platforms?after completing a degree raises critical questions about the adequacy of university education.

The Financial Strain

The pursuit of additional certifications is not only time-consuming?but also financially burdensome. After investing significant resources into obtaining a university degree—often with tuition fees running into lakhs of rupees—students are confronted with the reality that their qualifications aren’t enough. They must then spend even more money on platforms like Coursera, edX, Udemy, or company-led certifications (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) to gain skills that should arguably have been part of their formal education.

• Cost of External Certifications: Certifications from industry-recognized platforms can cost anywhere from ?10,000 to ?50,000 or more per course, adding a financial strain?on students who may already be burdened by student loans or other educational costs.
• Unnecessary Financial Pressure: Many students must juggle part-time jobs?or additional loans?just to afford these certifications. This leads to financial stress at the start of their careers, which could have been avoided had the university curriculum included relevant training in the first place.

The Time Burden

In addition to the financial costs, students are also forced to invest significant amounts of time?in earning these certifications. Rather than stepping straight into the workforce after completing their degree, they must spend months—if not years—post-graduation?acquiring the skills that are now deemed essential in the job market.

Rather than stepping straight into the workforce after completing their degree, they must spend months—if not years—post-graduation?acquiring the skills that are now deemed essential in the job market.

• Delayed Career Entry: This extended period of training post-graduation can delay students from entering the job market, causing them to lose valuable time, experience, and opportunities to start building their careers.
• Added Stress and Exhaustion: After four years of rigorous study, students expect to have the skills necessary to begin their careers. However, being forced to continue their education externally often leads to mental exhaustion, causing many students to feel burnt out before their professional life even begins.

The Double Cost: Time and Money

This system of requiring students to pursue external certifications post-graduation represents a double cost: not only in terms of money?but also in time. Students are essentially paying twice—first for their degree, and then again for the certifications that actually make them employable. Moreover, they’re losing valuable time that could be spent building their careers, networking, and gaining experience in the workforce.

• The Impact on Employability: By the time students have completed their additional certifications, they may have lost competitive ground to peers who were able to step into the job market sooner. The industry moves fast, and any delay in career progression can have long-term implications?for growth and success.

The current system is not working for students, nor is it preparing them adequately for the workforce. By integrating industry certifications into the curriculum, universities can ensure that students graduate with both the knowledge?and skills?needed to thrive in today’s rapidly evolving job market. There is no reason why students should have to bear the burden of external certifications after completing a degree, especially when universities have the opportunity to close this gap through modernized education models.

The current system is not working for students, nor is it preparing them adequately for the workforce.

The Ideal Solution: Futuristic Composition of the Board of Studies

To truly prepare students for the next decade of technological innovation, universities must revamp the composition?of their Board of Studies. A forward-thinking board should have a balanced mix of experienced academicians, industry professionals, and global experts?to ensure that students are not only learning theoretical concepts but are also equipped with practical, hands-on skills?that are in demand in the industry.

An ideal Board of Studies should include:

• Experienced Academicians with Relevant or Recent PhDs?– 20%
• Professionals from New Age Technology Companies?– 20%
• University Alumni in Related Professional or Academic Roles?– 20%
• Senior Academicians/Industry Experts and Related Representatives?– 10%
• Management Representatives?– 5%
• NITI Aayog Members/Researchers?– 15%
• Representatives from International Universities in the Related Field?– 10%

By including more representatives from new-age technology companies?and international academic institutions, universities can ensure that their curriculum is globally competitive?and aligned with the latest advancements?in technology.

Outdated PhDs and Their Impact on Curriculum Development

It’s important to note that a significant portion of the academicians?who sit on these boards have earned their PhDs over 10 years ago. While their academic experience is valuable, the pace of technological change?has accelerated rapidly in the last decade. This means that much of the research they conducted during their PhD studies is likely no longer relevant to today’s technology landscape. The result is that the curriculum decisions?made by these individuals may be out of touch?with the current and future needs of students.

Actionable Steps for Universities

Universities should consider taking the following steps to restructure their Board of Studies:

1. Increase Representation from New Age Technology Companies: Ensure that professionals who are currently working in AI, IoT, cybersecurity, and other futuristic technologies?are well-represented on the board. This will ensure that students are being taught the skills they need for the next decade of work.
2. Encourage Alumni Participation: Invite recent alumni who are working in industry-relevant roles?to join the Board of Studies. Their feedback can help shape a curriculum that is both theoretically sound?and practically relevant.
3. Diversify the Board: Move beyond traditional academic structures and include representatives from global institutions, government bodies like NITI Aayog, and industry think tanks. This diversity will bring a broader perspective to curriculum development and ensure that the board is thinking not just about today’s needs but about the future of work.

The Ideal Solution: Industry Collaboration and Practical Exposure

To address this gap, universities must modernize their approach?and form partnerships with leading companies and industry experts. By collaborating with professionals working in Data Science, ML, AI, and Cybersecurity, universities can ensure that students gain practical experience while they are still in school.

These collaborations can take the form of:

1. Industry-Led Certifications?integrated into the curriculum.
2. Real-World Projects?where students gain hands-on experience.
3. Industry Internships and Workshops?conducted by experts in futuristic technologies.

Why Do We Still Need Faculty for Demanding and Futuristic Courses?

Given the rapid advancements in AI, Data Science, Machine Learning, and other futuristic fields, one might question the necessity of relying on traditional faculty for teaching these subjects. After all, many industry leaders?and certification platforms?already offer comprehensive courses designed by experts actively working in the field. So, why not bypass outdated faculty and partner directly with these industry giants?

Industry Certifications vs. University Faculty: The Case for Change

The core argument is simple: industry certifications?are often more current, hands-on, and relevant?than courses taught by faculty who may not have real-world experience in these emerging technologies. By partnering with industry leaders?like Google, AWS, IBM, or Cisco, universities can offer students access to cutting-edge certifications?directly within their degree programs. This way, students can gain practical skills recognized and valued by employers, without needing to go through outdated university lectures.

Why Relying on Faculty May Not be the Best Option

1. Lack of Real-World Experience: Many faculty members have spent years in academia, away from the fast-evolving demands of the industry. This disconnect means they may lack the practical, hands-on experience?that is essential for teaching subjects like AI, IoT, and Data Science.
2. Outdated Knowledge: With 95% of faculty lacking basic coding skills?and some holding PhDs awarded over a decade ago, they may not be equipped to teach demanding and futuristic subjects?that require cutting-edge?and up-to-date knowledge.
3. Global Industry Standards: Certifications from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and other tech giants are globally recognized. These certifications are frequently updated to align with the latest industry standards, something that many university curriculums fail to do.

A New Model for Higher Education

By directly partnering with leading tech companies, universities can offer students the chance to complete industry-recognized certifications?as part of their degree programs. These certifications would not only enhance employability?but also ensure that students graduate with the latest skills?needed in the job market.

How It Would Work:

1. Certification-Based Credits: Students can enrol in certification programs (e.g., AWS Certified Solutions Architect, Google Cloud ML Engineer) as part of their coursework. The university would award credits?for successfully completing these certifications, eliminating the need for students to pursue external certifications post-graduation.
2. Faculty Facilitation, Not Teaching: Instead of teaching these subjects, faculty members could act as facilitators or mentors, guiding students through industry-led certifications and helping them apply the concepts to real-world projects.
3. Regular Curriculum Updates: Partnering with industry ensures that the curriculum remains current and adaptive?to changing technologies, eliminating the risk of outdated knowledge?being passed down to students.

The Benefits of Industry-Driven Learning

• Higher Employability: Certifications from globally recognized platforms immediately boost a student’s resume and increase their chances?of securing top jobs.
• Reduced Financial Burden: Instead of paying for expensive external certifications after graduation, students can complete these certifications during their degree program at no extra cost.
• Hands-On Learning: Students learn by doing, ensuring they not only grasp theoretical concepts but also master real-world applications?of these technologies.

The future of education lies in strong industry partnerships. By embracing certifications offered by industry leaders, universities can ensure that their students are future-ready, without being held back by outdated faculty or curriculums. The traditional model of relying on internal faculty for every subject may no longer be viable, especially in demanding and futuristic fields. Universities should seize the opportunity to modernize?their approach and work closely with industry to equip students with the skills that matter.

Bridging the Gap Between Academia and Industry

The challenges facing our graduates today are multifaceted, but they all stem from one fundamental issue: the disconnect between academic training?and industry demands. My analysis of the academic landscape, the Board of Studies, and the burdens students face?has revealed that universities are not adapting fast enough to the technological shifts?happening around us. Outdated syllabi, irrelevant board members, and the need for external certifications?are all symptoms of a system that is no longer fit for purpose.

To truly prepare students for the next decade, universities must take decisive action. This means partnering with industry leaders?to provide practical, hands-on learning experiences, ensuring that faculty and board members?are well-versed in futuristic technologies, and aligning degree programs with the certifications that are most valuable in the job market.

Only by addressing these core issues can universities help students bridge the gap between graduation and employability, ensuring that the next generation of graduates is future-ready?and equipped to succeed in a rapidly evolving world. The solutions are clear, but action is needed now to reshape the educational landscape and better serve the students who are the future of our industries.

For more information, please feel free to contact me in the order of my preference:

WhatsApp:?+91 8086 01 5111

Email:?[email protected]

Phone: +91 8086 01 5111

Subscribe to my Newsletter: Click Here

Buy my Book: Click Here