Editorial: Address structural flaws in higher education
One of the flaws is that nearly a quarter of faculty end up spending most of their time on administrative tasks that are primarily critical to institutions rather than students
Despite having one of the world’s largest higher education networks, including over 1,300 universities, the academic and research standards in India are woefully short of international standards. They fare poorly in the global rankings, puncturing the oft-repeated narrative of being a ‘Vishwaguru’. A recent nationwide survey has revealed several structural flaws in the higher education sector, particularly concerning the faculty. Nearly one in three faculty members reported receiving no formal training on how to teach before entering the classroom, and among those who did, almost 70% found that training ineffective, the Jetri Faculty Worklife Report 2025 has pointed out. There are over 1.6 million faculty members teaching over 40 million students spread across higher education institutions in the country. One of the key findings of the study, based on responses from 547 faculty members across public and private institutions, was that nearly a quarter of faculty end up spending most of their time on administrative tasks that are primarily critical to institutions rather than students. This imbalance suggests that institutional priorities may crowd out time for student-focused interactions. In contrast, globally ranked institutions prioritise faculty-student interactions and project-based learning more than anything else. Faculty members who spend more time on student-centred work tend to remain longer at their institutions, suggesting that meaningful teaching may help retain the faculty. When faculty feel unable to do the work they value most, disengagement follows. Similarly, lecture-based teaching remains the dominant mode in India, even as nearly two-thirds of faculty report persistent struggles with student engagement.
Many faculty members juggle teaching, research and administrative duties without enough support to manage competing demands, leaving them overwhelmed, feeling caught between priorities and struggling to maintain balance. As they are increasingly pulled away from student-focused tasks, the critical bonds that drive both student and faculty engagement risk fraying — affecting the heart of the academic experience. The surveyed faculty members admitted to feeling ill-equipped to address students’ mental-health issues, diverse learning needs, and the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Another big challenge pertains to student motivation. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents cited lack of student engagement as a huge challenge. It was observed that student commitments did not come from a place of genuine passion, as they seemed to care more about collecting activities they could put on their resume or on social media. Teaching methods also play a major role in driving student engagement. The survey has shown that lecture-based abstract teaching remains the overwhelming default for faculty. The faculty development programmes in India remain patchy and fragmented, often designed to meet regulatory requirements rather than build sustained capability. This leaves higher education faculty without a coherent pathway for growth. It is time policymakers did some serious introspection on the initiatives needed to improve academic and research standards in our universities.
