Four-Year Undergraduate Programme: Boon or Bane in Indian Higher Education?

The introduction of the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) by the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has aroused a mixed reaction from the Indian higher education circle. While it is being sold as an innovative reform on the global model, its critics believe that it would bring more uncertainty than certainty.

On its surface, FYUP provides creativity and flexibility. It provides multiple points of entry and multiple points of exit—certificate after one year, diploma after two years, degree after three years, and a research degree after four years. The intention is to create integrated, inter-disciplinary learning and break down subject compartments. The programme also combines community service, value education, and internship, marking an evolutionary leap forward in linking academia with practical issues.

But realities on ground are otherwise. How FYUP has been brought in most universities—likely by executive fiat and short of complete deliberation or UGC guidelines—is a reason for serious suspicion. It is a change so fundamental to implement without systemic preparedness that it has the capability to undermine academic standards. Universities are already struggling to make up for infrastructure and faculty shortcomings. How will they be able to facilitate the high-intensity research and interdisciplinarity that the FYUP plans to implement, now?

Also, the idea of exit points several is utopian in theory but could actually produce a hierarchy of graduates. Will a diploma holder be treated equally to a diploma holder or even an individual with a full-fledged four-year degree? The already constrained labor market with mismatches of employability might actually become more perplexed with the patchwork of qualifications.

We threaten to actually speed up the vocationalisation of university education. Vocation training is required, but should not replace intellectual rigor which under-graduate study needs to provide. We might very well in practice commodify university education as a training module for employment in disguise of flexibility.

NEP 2020 discusses pedagogic innovation and institutional autonomy. How can institutions of higher education be autonomous if they are forced to adopt top-down policy transformation without any preparation? Multidisciplinary learning, lifelong learning, and research degree are excellent ideals but need visionary planning, quality preparation of teachers, and sound regulation—not haphazardly implementing them.

The FYUP could have been a blessing—if well executed with a robust regulatory environment, pilot operation, and ongoing public debate. Otherwise, it will be the latest reform that will look resplendent on paper but fails the test at the ground level. At least for now, it is an uneven bag: promising but marred by reckless implementation.