Are students being offered genuinely meaningful learning experiences through these added courses, or are they left unsure about how such subjects align with their career paths?
The national education policy (NEP) 2020 is one of India’s most ambitious education reforms, aiming to transform learning through early childhood care, foundational literacy and numeracy, multidisciplinary education, vocational training, and inclusivity. On paper, it promises creativity, critical thinking, and global relevance. However, its rapid implementation has revealed several operational challenges.
A key pillar of the policy is its emphasis on multidisciplinary learning, encouraging students to explore subjects beyond their core specialisation. While this promotes holistic development, its practical relevance for students in technical fields like chemistry or physics remains questionable. Non-science students are now engaging with science through multidisciplinary courses (MC), value-added courses (VAC), and ability enhancement courses (AEC), while science students are required to study subjects from the humanities and commerce streams. Many academicians worry that such breadth may come at the cost of depth, potentially affecting students’ ability to qualify for national-level exams like NET-JRF. For instance, introducing music or yoga under VAC or language AECs may enrich academics. However, for science students this risk diluting core learning. Cutting time and credits for core subjects weakens academic strength as a balance between multidisciplinary learning and subject depth is crucial.
Importantly, foundational competencies like mathematics and computer literacy are not being emphasised enough. Mathematics, vital to scientific reasoning and research, is often avoided due to its perceived difficulty, and many undergraduate science programmes fail to reinforce it. Similarly, computer literacy is now essential across professions. Proficiency in Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and even subject-specialised software, is no longer optional. While such courses exist on paper, actual implementation is often weak. If the NEP truly aims to prepare students for modern workforces, these skills should not remain optional. However, they must be relevant to discipline without becoming additional burdens.
In earlier system, students studied Indian languages and English until secondary school, after which English became the primary medium. This was both inclusive and practical, especially for first generation learners. NEP’s emphasis on language diversity is laudable, but higher education must prioritise academic and professional development. Curriculum design should be thoughtful, avoiding irrelevant math or computer programming for students in unrelated fields.
It is not the policy, but its implementation raises practical concerns. Are students being offered genuinely meaningful learning experiences through these added courses, or are they left unsure about how such subjects align with their career paths? Institutions that have successfully run traditional, specialised programmes for decades are now being forced to change their curricula, workloads, and staff roles, often without enough administrative support and with growing fears of staff becoming redundant. The sad reality is that many qualified contract staff who contributed to these institutions for years have already lost their jobs due to the new system. Although colleges are theoretically free to design their own courses, the overall system creates pressure to follow a standard approach,
Another area under scrutiny is the uniform credit system. While its intent is to ensure fairness in student workloads across disciplines, education isn’t always symmetrical. Many science practicals may conclude in two hours, but chemistry practicals demand more real-time observation, hands-on engagement, and repeated trials. The new model adds a 1-credit practical to 4-credit science subjects, which limits lab time to just two hours barely enough for meaningful explanation and experimentation. Interestingly, practical component has now been introduced in humanities SEC subjects as well, but their requirements cannot reasonably be equated with experimental nature of science practicals.
This drive for uniformity also affects course offerings. A clause requiring minimum student numbers has become more rigid. Administrations demand 60 students per class, which may simplify logistics but severely undermines academic necessity. Specialised subjects or niche courses naturally attract fewer students. Imposing minimum numbers leads to their closure, limiting choice and damaging curriculum richness. Even the clause requiring a minimum of 10 students to run a course appears problematic. Some programmes have fewer than ten, sometimes just one genuinely interested learner. Should we deny that student the opportunity to study simply due to low enrolment? Education must remain student-centric. If a single learner is committed to a subject, the system should support them. Japan’s famed example where a train continued running for just one student to complete education captures this ethos. Encouragingly, the NEP has relaxed minimum enrolment clauses for regional languages. A similar sensitivity should be extended to other academic disciplines. In many ways, the NEP implementation has become a race with states eager to declare themselves pioneers. But the merit of a policy lies in its thoughtfulness, not its speed. Uniform structures may appear just on the surface, but they often flatten the unique needs of different disciplines and institutions.
The NEP 2020 is a document born of vision and optimism, but making it work needs realistic timelines, careful planning, and feedback from those on the ground. A ‘Tirupati-style haircut’ doesn’t suit everyone and neither does a one-size-fits-all education model. The policy has the potential to transform Indian education and align it with global standards. But its success depends on striking a balance between visionary goals and practical realities. Whether in course design, credit systems, or classroom size, a one-size-fits-all approach can damage the very traditions it seeks to reform. The real challenge is not just in designing reform, but in implementing it wisely, flexibly, and inclusively. Some of the best minds are shaping the NEP and with open dialogue and feedback, we can refine it to balance vision and reality.
(Dr Mithil S Fal Desai is an assistant professor in chemistry (contract) at Shree Mallikarjun and Shri Chetan Manju Desai College Canacona, Goa)
