Why the Affiliation System Is Outdated, A 15-Year Roadmap to Institutional Autonomy
The National Education Policy 2020 Envisages a Gradual Phase-Out of the Affiliation Model, but Implementation Requires Nationwide Effort and Governmental Support
An often less discussed feature of the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 is the new regulatory system envisaged for affiliating colleges. The objective of the new system is to foster empowerment and autonomy by gradually phasing out the affiliation system over a period of 15 years through a process of graded autonomy.
The NEP suggests that each existing university should play the role of a mentor for its affiliated colleges, and enable them to develop their own capabilities and achieve minimum benchmarks in academic and curricular matters, teaching and assessment, governance reforms, financial robustness, and administrative efficiency in order to become self-reliant. All affiliated colleges will have to attain the minimum required standards to secure accreditation benchmarks and acquire the status of an autonomous degree-granting institution.
Needless to say, it is a big reform for which nation-wide efforts and governmental support is a sine qua non. The affiliation system is so deeply entrenched in Indian higher education that disassociating colleges from universities sounds unrealistic to many. Yet the limitations of the current model have become increasingly apparent, and the case for reform grows stronger with each passing year.
The Deeply Entrenched System
The college-university affiliation system has long served as the foundational structure for higher education in India. It is so deeply entrenched that the idea of disassociating colleges from universities sounds unrealistic to many who have grown up within this framework. Universities conduct affiliation for colleges in accordance with University Grants Commission guidelines to maintain academic standards, ensure uniform curriculum and examinations, and regulate infrastructure and faculty quality.
Moreover, college affiliation in India is not a one-time process. The affiliation is usually granted initially for one year and renewed annually or periodically. This creates a relationship of perpetual dependency, where colleges must constantly seek approval from their parent university for even minor decisions, and where the threat of non-renewal looms over every administrative action.
However, while the conventional university affiliation model once provided centralised control and administrative stability, it now seems to hinder the growth, autonomy, and quality of colleges. The university affiliation system is now riddled with systemic inefficiencies, archaic academic rigidity, and administrative challenges that impede the progress of colleges.
The Burden on Universities
One of the most significant problems with the affiliation system is the overwhelming burden it places on universities. Most universities in India are affiliated with hundreds of colleges, entrusted to manage examinations, evaluate answer scripts, design curriculum, monitor college compliance, and oversee academic and extracurricular activities for an overwhelming number of students.
The numbers tell a stark story. A single state university may be affiliated with 500 or more colleges, enrolling hundreds of thousands of students. The administrative machinery required to manage such a scale is enormous. Examination schedules must be coordinated, answer scripts transported and evaluated, results compiled and published. Curriculum committees must meet, syllabi must be updated, and all changes must be communicated to hundreds of affiliated institutions.
The attention of resource-strained universities, especially state universities, gets diverted from their core functions—such as research, innovation, faculty development, and collaboration—due to heavy administrative workloads. As a result, universities are compelled to act merely as bureaucratic bodies instead of pushing the boundaries of knowledge both for students and faculty.
A university that should be a centre of research and scholarship becomes instead a clearinghouse for examination forms and degree certificates. Its faculty, who should be engaged in cutting-edge research, spend their time on administrative tasks that could be handled by colleges themselves. The opportunity cost is immense.
The Lack of Autonomy for Colleges
The lack of autonomy for affiliated colleges poses another significant challenge. Under the present university affiliation system, it is mandatory for all colleges to follow the regulations, syllabi, examination patterns, and administrative instructions issued by the affiliating university. This dependency prevents colleges from designing their own courses that align with their local or industrial needs, and emerging market trends.
A college in a region dominated by agriculture might want to offer specialised courses in agribusiness or food processing. A college in an industrial area might want to develop programmes tailored to local manufacturing needs. A college with a strong faculty in computer science might want to introduce cutting-edge courses in artificial intelligence or data science.
Under the affiliation system, none of this is possible. The curriculum is set by the university, which must accommodate the needs of hundreds of diverse colleges. The result is a one-size-fits-all approach that fits no one well.
This rigidity imposes uniformity at the cost of creativity, denying colleges the freedom to differentiate themselves through specialised courses, modern pedagogical practices, or interdisciplinary initiatives. As a result, the potential for innovation is stifled. Colleges that could become centres of excellence in specific areas remain generic institutions, indistinguishable from their neighbours.
The Slow Pace of Curriculum Reform
Then there is the slow pace at which curriculum reforms take place under the university affiliation model. Since universities oversee a large number of colleges, revising curricula requires extensive consultations, committee meetings with boards of studies and department councils, and administrative approvals from academic councils. This process often takes a very long time, causing course content to become outdated by the time reforms are implemented.
The educational needs of students in disciplines such as engineering and technology change very rapidly. What was state-of-the-art three years ago may be obsolete today. Yet the affiliation system is simply not agile enough to respond with the required speed. By the time a new curriculum is approved, the industry has moved on, and students are being trained for a world that no longer exists.
This lag is not merely inconvenient; it is damaging. Students graduate with skills that are no longer relevant. Employers find that fresh graduates lack the competencies they need. The entire education system becomes misaligned with the needs of the economy.
The Myth of Standardisation
Moreover, the affiliation model, despite its best intentions to standardise education, has led to quite the opposite. While all colleges may follow the same curriculum, the actual delivery of education varies drastically due to huge gaps in infrastructure. Many colleges operate with inadequate laboratories, insufficient library facilities, outdated equipment, and a shortage of qualified teachers.
A student in a well-funded urban college may have access to modern laboratories, a rich library, and highly qualified faculty. A student in a rural college with the same affiliation may have none of these. Both receive the same degree, but the quality of education they have received is vastly different.
Such disparities weaken the credibility of standardised learning outcomes, as students from different colleges under the same university may graduate with vastly different levels of skill and competence. The degree becomes an unreliable signal of ability, and employers must find other ways to assess candidates.
The NEP Vision
The NEP 2020 offers a way out of this impasse. The policy envisages a gradual transition from the affiliation system to a system of graded autonomy, where colleges earn the right to grant their own degrees by meeting minimum quality benchmarks.
The process is designed to be supportive rather than punitive. Existing universities will act as mentors, helping affiliated colleges develop their capabilities. Colleges will be encouraged to achieve accreditation and to demonstrate competence in academic and curricular matters, teaching and assessment, governance reforms, financial robustness, and administrative efficiency.
Over a 15-year period, the affiliation system will be phased out. Colleges that meet the required standards will become autonomous degree-granting institutions. Those that cannot will continue to be supported until they can, or may need to reconsider their viability.
An Alternative Model
Instead of affiliations, colleges may be encouraged to participate in the National Institutional Ranking Framework/National Board of Accreditation exercise which is grounded in established quality criteria. This would shift the focus from compliance with university regulations to demonstrable quality outcomes.
Under such a system, colleges would be free to design their own curricula, set their own examinations, and manage their own administration. They would be accountable not to a distant university bureaucracy but to students, employers, and accreditation bodies. The role of the state would shift from regulation to quality assurance, from control to support.
The Path Forward
The transition from affiliation to autonomy will not be easy. It requires significant investment in college infrastructure, faculty development, and administrative capacity. It requires a cultural shift in how colleges and universities view themselves and their relationships. It requires political will and sustained commitment.
But the alternative is to continue with a system that frustrates the potential of both colleges and universities, that fails to prepare students for the modern economy, and that perpetuates disparities in educational quality. The cost of inaction is too high.
The NEP has provided a vision and a timeline. What remains is the work of implementation—nation-wide efforts and governmental support to make the vision a reality. The future of higher education in India hinges on empowering institutions with autonomy, flexibility, and the capacity to innovate freely—conditions the affiliation system can no longer adequately provide.
Q&A: Unpacking the Higher Education Affiliation System
Q1: What is the affiliation system, and why is it so deeply entrenched in Indian higher education?
A: The affiliation system is the foundational structure where universities grant affiliation to colleges, ensuring uniform curriculum, examinations, infrastructure, and faculty quality. Colleges typically receive annual or periodic affiliation renewals. The system is entrenched because it has served as the primary mechanism for expanding higher education access while maintaining centralised control. However, what once provided administrative stability now hinders growth, autonomy, and quality.
Q2: What problems does the current affiliation system create for universities?
A: Universities are burdened with managing hundreds of affiliated colleges, overseeing examinations, evaluating answer scripts, designing curriculum, monitoring compliance, and managing administrative tasks for enormous student populations. This heavy administrative workload diverts universities from their core functions: research, innovation, faculty development, and collaboration. Many universities, particularly state universities, become bureaucratic bodies rather than centres of knowledge creation.
Q3: How does the affiliation system limit colleges?
A: Colleges must follow the regulations, syllabi, examination patterns, and administrative instructions of their affiliating university. This prevents them from designing courses aligned with local or industrial needs, emerging market trends, or their own strengths. The rigidity imposes uniformity at the cost of creativity, denying colleges the freedom to differentiate through specialised courses, modern pedagogical practices, or interdisciplinary initiatives. Innovation is stifled.
Q4: What does the NEP 2020 propose regarding affiliation?
A: The NEP envisages phasing out the affiliation system over 15 years through graded autonomy. Existing universities will mentor their affiliated colleges, helping them develop capabilities and achieve minimum benchmarks in academics, curriculum, teaching, assessment, governance, financial robustness, and administrative efficiency. Colleges that meet required standards will become autonomous degree-granting institutions. The goal is to empower institutions with autonomy, flexibility, and capacity to innovate.
Q5: What alternative model does the author suggest for quality assurance?
A: Instead of affiliations, colleges may be encouraged to participate in the National Institutional Ranking Framework and National Board of Accreditation exercise, which are grounded in established quality criteria. This shifts the focus from compliance with university regulations to demonstrable quality outcomes. Colleges would be accountable to students, employers, and accreditation bodies rather than distant university bureaucracies. The state’s role would shift from regulation to quality assurance and support.
