Outdated Curriculums, Outdated Faculty: The Crisis Facing Engineering Education Today (Even in so Called 'futuristic' Private Universities)
Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran (Dr. DD)
Merging Neuroscience, Dermatoglyphics, Psychology & AI to Revolutionize Career Decisions | Founder & CEO @ CareerNest
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 Numerous articles, both academic and journalistic, have identified a handful of recurring themes: outdated curricula, a lack of skills, and the persistent disconnect between industry and academia.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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
领英推荐
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.
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.
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 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:
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:
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:
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
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:
The Benefits of Industry-Driven Learning
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
Asst. Prof. in physics
1 个月The education system should change so that if a student chooses to settle in such a way, a syllabus should be prepared. In today's world, technology is evolving at such a rapid pace that understanding it and establishing a battery manufacturing company is more important than ever. The solar manufacturing industry also requires a background in physics and chemistry.?Can you ensure all students that you would only supply software jobs when they complete their B.Tech.? As a result, the most significant consideration is to improve material nature in order to prepare sophisticated technical equipment manufacturing.??Furthermore, in the near future, quantum computing will dominate the entire planet. Without physics, how can you create and implement that advanced technology? Please be conscious when speaking about the issue.
Learning Experience Architect I Renewable Energy Expert | AI Enthusiast l Adventure Biker
5 个月Focus on capacity and capabilities for competence building instead of imposing needs. As far as I know, there are no concrete mechanisms for identification of capacity and capabilities early into engineering education. Careers for individuals vs individual for career.