India transitioned from an agrarian economy to a service sector-dominated one, largely bypassing manufacturing excellence as a foundational pillar. In my view, a similar trajectory is visible in our higher education system. We have always been a strong teaching-oriented higher education culture where research played a role with polite display, which has now shifted towards losing student learning engagement and a publication-driven model instead of deep research. For some time, we have been missing to build research as the true foundation of a knowledge-based economy.
In the absence of that, the industry started engaging in research or outsourcing to competent agencies. It’s not different in teaching and certifications. The rise of industry certifications and higher acceptance of the industry training modules in the degree programmes is evidence of the losing ground. This will not stop here.
Times Higher Education analysed data from 200 universities in 1990 and 2015 to identify the defining traits of high-quality universities. The study found a consistent emphasis on the thoughtful design and delivery of academic programmes, marked by intellectual rigour, deep respect for disciplinary integrity, and an unwavering commitment to student success. While there is no single formula for creating a great university, two drivers stood out: first, sustained financial investment to attract and retain faculty and build supportive facilities; and, second, a learning environment that is both intimate and intensive. The question now is, has this equation evolved in 2025?
Philip Altbach, a professor, observed in an article in 2012 that India is a world-class country without world-class universities. The higher education institutions’ research and teaching deliver a high level of relevance and application that becomes the recipe for impact and sustainability. Thus, students’ learning experience emphasis, employability focus and research attention of the university remain core. Without deliberate capacity building of systems and professors, a university risks stagnating on the S-curve, becoming a mere commodity or disappearing from the ecosystem. Institutions that pursue short-term agendas, teaching students without relevance or rigour, are the first to face commoditisation, ultimately leading to closure.
The first phase of economic reforms in 1991 was responded to by an increase in higher education institutions, including business schools throughout the decade; however, a sharp upsurge happened between 2000 and 2010. Post 2015, India made bold economic reforms, demanding that higher education institutions be more relevant and progressive to transformative changes in the knowledge economy. This required a comprehensive mindset shift from template to knowledge orientation, to present it politely. Thus, making the institutions faculty-driven, student-centred and industry-responsive, leading to knowledge creation and capacity building. This would not be possible without fair resource commitment by universities and shared ownership of universities, industries and government. Industry has to come out of the mindset that they can remain only talent users without investing in universities, and the government has to change to engage more with private universities, as public universities already receive large tax funds to start and sustain for at least 10 years. This is not happening for the first time; it has been managed well by Singapore, South Korea and Japan in the 1970s; China, Taiwan, Dubai and partially India, in recent times, to be a knowledge-driven higher education system.
A systemic transformation in the S-curve of the economic lifecycle is on the rise again with advancements in AI, robotics, connectivity and sustainable technologies. These are not incremental and will not affect only the industry vertical but society agencies, government and individuals. B-Schools have to be more relevant and agile, which force them to offer sectoral and specialised degrees rather than generic management education.
A systemic transformation in the S-curve of the economic lifecycle is on the rise again with advancements in AI, robotics, connectivity and sustainable technologies
Thus, going back to the core of education – domain knowledge, critical thinking, reflection and analytical approach – is the only way. This is added with an innovative mindset, AI and big data proficiency, resilience and adaptability and curiosity with life-long learning. Increasing the number of courses to meet new expectations will not work; business schools need new structures and courses, leaving the non-relevant ones out. It’s no longer a misnomer. We already have signs of top global universities' graduates not receiving employment offers due to AI-driven automation, lack of needed competency and shifting employer priorities.
If universities and business schools do not modify their relevance at different levels, i.e. all schools don’t have to compete at international or national levels, strong online quality courses and certifications will replace the degrees. Universities with average profile, in India, are already losing two of their core jobs, knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination, to consulting firms, research organisations and companies; they will also lose the third job, i.e. knowledge certification, to online and hybrid learning academies, certification agencies and standard boards. Relevance and rigour passion need to be back in classrooms to save business schools and universities.