If there is a will, there is always a way—even in government institutions

In an era where higher education is rapidly evolving to meet the demands of a dynamic global landscape, internal quality assurance has emerged as a cornerstone for academic excellence and institutional credibility. Dr. Prashant R. Nair, Head-Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore, brings invaluable insight into the processes, challenges, and future of quality assurance in Indian higher education. With years of experience in NAAC, NBA, and NIRF-related activities, Dr. Nair has been instrumental in shaping effective quality practices that blend tradition with innovation.

In this exclusive interview with Education Post’s Prabhav Anand, Dr. Nair shares a ground-level perspective on why institutions must be self-aware of their academic DNA, how the NEP 2020 is redefining teaching and research priorities, and what the road ahead looks like with the rise of AI, transparency, and micro-credentials. Through his candid reflections, he underscores the importance of leadership, accountability, and efficient institutional processes to enhance learning outcomes and educational impact. From addressing the performance gap in lesser-known government institutions to decoding the real impact of NEP 2020, he offers sharp, experience-backed commentary on institutional “DNA”, research-teaching balance, and the road to becoming a world-class academic ecosystem. He also delves into the growing role of technology—particularly AI, blockchain, and micro-credentials—in driving transparency and efficiency in internal quality assurance systems.

What sets this interview apart is Dr. Nair’s honest and unfiltered take on issues often glossed over in academic discourse. He calls for pragmatism, smart administration, and purposeful alignment of faculty strengths with institutional goals—while reminding us that transformation is possible when there is both will and vision.

Q: As the head of the Internet Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) at Amrita Vishwa Vidhyapitham, how do you define quality in the rapidly evolving landscape of higher education? What measures do you implement to ensure that quality assessment remains dynamic rather than just a formality?

In the context of higher education, I like to distinguish between two fundamental dimensions of quality—quality by design and quality by conformance. Quality by design refers to embedding excellence into institutional processes right from the outset. When your systems—be it academic delivery, research practices, governance, or student engagement—are robust and thoughtfully designed, quality becomes an inherent output. On the other hand, quality by conformance is about ensuring adherence to established benchmarks and standards, which is equally essential.

At Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, we see quality as an all-encompassing concept. It cuts across academics, administration, research, innovation, finance, governance, extension activities, and overall student experience. It's not siloed into departments—quality has to be institutional and cultural.

In this respect, the NAAC accreditation process is particularly significant. Despite some recent criticisms, I believe NAAC’s methodology is rigorous and offers a 360-degree evaluation framework that pushes institutions to introspect and evolve. Of course, like any large-scale system, there may be occasional anomalies, but those are exceptions—not reflections of the framework’s strength. The process is comprehensive and compels institutions to integrate continuous improvement into their DNA. For us at Amrita, quality is not a checkbox exercise—it's a commitment to excellence that we live by every day.

Q: One of the major criticisms of Indian higher education is the gap between academic training and industry expectations. This disparity poses a significant challenge for today’s generation of students. How does your institution ensure that the curriculum and teaching methodologies are aligned with industry needs while still maintaining academic rigor?

Yeah, so it’s not like industry and academia have been operating in silos. Especially when you look at top-tier institutions in India, including Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, there has always been active engagement with the industry. The relationship is very much there—but it needs a lot of proactiveness. If the industry takes one step toward you, as an academic institution, you’ve got to take three. That kind of initiative is crucial.

Now, the problem sometimes lies in the internal bureaucracy. Let’s say you want to revise the syllabus, introduce a new elective, or launch a new minor specialization—it has to pass through layers like the Board of Studies, the Academic Council, and so on. And in many cases, the momentum gets lost in the system. So, that slows things down.

At Amrita, we’ve made a conscious effort to break out of that. We’ve had a Directorate of Corporate and Industry Relations since as far back as 1996 or 1997—so we’ve been engaging with the industry for nearly three decades now. And not just for placements, though that’s obviously important. Our engagement goes much deeper—through centres of excellence, industry-sponsored labs, research collaborations, industry-led electives, and even professors of practice joining our faculty.

I remember back in 2005—almost 20 years ago—I was just starting out as a young faculty member, and we already had an Infosys-designed elective in our curriculum. That kind of integration with industry didn’t just start now; it’s been in our DNA for years. So yes, at Amrita and in several other leading institutions, we’ve been very proactive in aligning with industry needs without compromising on academic depth

Q: Regarding the Professor of Practice (POP) initiative introduced by the UGC, do you think this could be a milestone for the Indian education system? It has the potential to bridge the gap between academia and industry.

Yeah, yeah—no doubt about it. I think the Professor of Practice model can add tremendous value to higher education in India—if it is implemented effectively and proactively. That’s the key. You can’t just issue an appointment letter, take a photo, put it up on your website, and then forget about it. That doesn’t serve the purpose.

The real value comes when you actively engage the professor of practice. These are professionals from the industry—they’ve got targets, deliverables, their own schedules. If you want them to contribute meaningfully, you have to go after them. Institutions must chase them, follow up, say: “Please come, take this course for us,” or “Let’s collaborate on this module.” And more importantly, we—on the academic side—have to be flexible. We can't expect them to operate within rigid timetables or bureaucratic red tape. If they’re offering their time, we must adapt our systems to accommodate them.

I think that’s where the real challenge lies. Industry professionals are open to engaging—they see it as a win-win. They know the kind of skills students need when they graduate. But it’s up to academic institutions to be proactive and build those bridges. If we don’t take that initiative, then we’re just wasting the opportunity. From an academic point of view, I’d say it’s a game-changer—but only if done right.

Q: Amrita Vishwa Vidyapitham has gained international recognition through various global rankings and collaborations. So from your perspective, what are the biggest hurdles that Indian universities face in competing on global stage and how can they overcome these challenges?

Yeah, that’s actually a very good question. See, if you look at the top-tier institutions in India—like the IITs, IIMs, IISc, ISIs—they already have very strong global recognition. And I would say even several top private and deemed-to-be universities—maybe around 100 to 150 institutions—are already doing quite well globally in terms of rankings, collaborations, and reputation.

But beyond that, for the rest of the institutions, there’s still a long way to go. And now, with the evolving scenario, we have to understand that market forces are going to play a huge role. I recently attended the QS India Summit in Goa, and what I heard there was quite eye-opening. Nearly 10 foreign universities are at various stages of entering India—some have already begun operations, some are in the process. For instance, Deakin and Wollongong have set up campuses in GIFT City. University of Southampton is starting a campus in Delhi NCR, probably by this June or July. Even universities from the UK and Malaysia are looking to set up shop.

So, we’re staring at a future where foreign education is going to be available right here in India. Students won’t need to go abroad for a global degree—they’ll get the same brand, the same curriculum, within the country. Of course, there will always be students who want to migrate, and that’s a different motivation. But for the rest—those who are purely looking for quality education—the competition is going to be stiff.

What that means is, unless Indian institutions—especially the mid-tier and emerging ones—evolve and constantly upgrade across all parameters of quality, they’re going to find it very difficult to survive. It’ll be a very level playing field, and only the best will thrive.

We are already seeing signs of this shift—many institutions are struggling with zero or very low enrollments. And with UGC now planning to grant more autonomy and university status to top-performing autonomous colleges, the number of players in the higher education landscape will rise, but only those who focus on quality and relevance will sustain.

So yes, competing globally isn’t just about rankings—it’s about staying relevant, being agile, and truly offering value to students. Otherwise, survival itself will become a challenge.

Q: Given your impressive background in mentoring teams that excelled in national competitions, including recognition from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, what changes do you believe should be made to hackathon organization or follow-up processes to ensure that great ideas lead to lasting innovation and business success instead of just being one-time contests?

Yeah, that's actually a very important and relevant question. See, over the last 7–8 years, I’ve been mentoring a lot of students in hackathons, and I can tell you from experience that these platforms really bring out the best in them. What’s interesting is—most of the students who do well in these are not necessarily gold medalists or 10 pointers. They’re average students who are just very passionate, very hands-on, and want to build something real.

Many of my mentees have gone on to get offers from companies like Microsoft, Google, or admissions into top universities like Stanford, Georgia Tech, Carnegie Mellon—purely because of the practical skills and innovation mindset they’ve demonstrated through hackathons. So in that sense, hackathons are definitely working.

But having said that, the real challenge is what happens after the hackathon. A lot of brilliant ideas just stop at the competition stage. There’s not enough structured support to take it further—like mentoring, incubation, funding, or industry connects. And I keep saying this—everyone can’t become an entrepreneur. It's risky, it takes guts, and many of our students or even parents are risk-averse. So even among thousands of good ideas, only a handful may actually move forward.

So if we really want these hackathons to translate into startups or impactful innovations, then institutions need to create that ecosystem—follow-up support, incubation cells, maybe even industry partners who can pick up and scale these ideas. Otherwise, it's just a one-off success story and we lose that momentum. That’s the gap we still need to bridge.

Q: Let's discuss rankings, specifically global rankings. India has over 1,100 universities, with even more expected to emerge in the future. While greater numbers are welcome, only a select few manage to achieve a place on global ranking lists. In your opinion, what systematic changes are necessary to transform Indian higher education into a more competitive force on the global stage?

Yes, this is something we’ve all been thinking about. See, global rankings like Times Higher Education, QS, or Shanghai—they’re heavily research-centric. The major parameters are research output, internationalization, and perception. These three dominate the scoring system.

Now, the issue is—most of our Indian institutions, especially affiliated colleges, are not built for that. You can't expect a regular teaching institution to suddenly bring in hundreds of international students or produce high-impact papers and patents. It’s just not practical.

That’s why NEP 2020 rightly talks about three types of institutions—research universities, teaching-focused institutions, and the hybrid ones that do both. Honestly, only the research and some hybrid institutions are in a position to enter global rankings. The others simply don't fit those criteria.

That’s also why the NIRF was started. Because global rankings don't reflect our Indian context—things like placements, social outreach, or inclusivity. For instance, in the US, I’ve studied and worked there—there are no placement cells like we have here. You go to a career office, maybe get a few leads, and that's it. But in India, the placement system is a major benchmark—so NIRF takes that into account.

So to become globally competitive, we need systemic changes: we need to build more research-oriented universities, push for international collaborations, invest in PhDs and high-quality faculty, and most importantly, create an environment that supports deep, continuous research—not just teaching. It's a long-term game, but with the right focus, we can get there.

Q: There has been a noticeable post-pandemic surge in EdTech solutions compared to traditional online education systems. As physical campuses regain their importance, I am curious about the long-term value of EdTech in higher education. Can it truly replace traditional universities in the future?

See, I personally feel that online education, blended learning, hybrid models—all of that is definitely here to stay. Micro-credentials, digital certifications, these trends will only grow. But at the same time, I don’t think they can completely replace traditional education. They will complement, they will supplement—but not replace.

During the pandemic, we all moved online. At that time, there was a lot of talk—will students only come to campus for a couple of months, just for labs? Will everything else go online forever? But none of that really happened, right?

Because education is not just about content delivery. It’s a holistic experience—there’s a social, emotional, and human connection involved. That can’t be replicated entirely online. I mean, just look around—everyone is still building new campuses, new hostels, academic blocks. Physical infrastructure is expanding, not shrinking. So brick-and-mortar universities are here to stay.

Now, that doesn’t mean we go back to the old ways completely. Flexibility is important. UGC has allowed up to 40% of a program to be delivered online—through SWAYAM or NPTEL and the like. But tell me honestly, how many top universities are really doing that 40% online? Barely any. Maybe a few electives here and there, we give equivalence to online courses—but that’s a small chunk of the full degree.

It’s possible to use online elements more in engineering, but in arts, humanities—and definitely not in health sciences—it’s just not feasible. Practical learning needs physical presence. Labs, workshops, projects—they can’t be replaced by a tool or a screen.

Yes, some EdTech tools are helpful—no doubt about that. I myself use certain tools in class. Maybe earlier I was using 10% of them, now I use 20%. I might show a virtual simulation, use a video, or an interactive module. It helps students understand better, especially in technical subjects. But these tools are just that—tools. They can aid the learning process, not replace the teacher-student interaction.

And one more thing—I’m not in favor of things like ChatGPT being used for writing assignments. That kills creativity. I always tell my students—use technology wisely, not as a shortcut.

So yes, EdTech has a role, and a growing one. But in my view, it will always remain a supplement, not a substitute.

Q: I have observed that many employers find undergraduates are increasingly lacking essential skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, and industry-specific expertise. This deficiency may stem from various factors, including the prevalence of online education. Do you think that higher education institutions focus too much on academic knowledge and not enough on employability? If this is the case, how can we bridge that gap?

Yeah, so I think most of the top institutions—I’m talking about the top 100 or 150 colleges—they are all focusing on employability. This is actually a general concern across higher education, not specific to any one place. But from what I’ve seen, especially in institutions like Amrita, we’ve built this right into the system.

For example, at Amrita, we don’t call it “soft skills”—I don’t like that term. We call it “life skills.” Because these are not soft anymore—they’re essential. Whether you're a BTech, BA, BSc, or MCA student, you go through life skill courses every semester—two credits, three credits, or even four credits depending on the program. These are focused on things like communication, problem solving, leadership, volunteering, logical thinking, all of that. And these are real 21st-century skills.

And it's not just us. Most of the top institutions, especially autonomous ones and private universities, have made employability a core focus. They’re bringing in value-added courses, skill-based training, and certifications. Now, the challenge comes more for affiliated colleges. Because their curriculum is controlled by the affiliating university, they can't just add new courses easily. But many good affiliated colleges are taking the initiative—they offer these as value-added programs outside the regular curriculum.

Of course, these programs need investment. Like take foreign languages, for example—how many colleges have someone in-house who can teach French or German? You’ll need to hire someone from Alliance Française or Goethe-Institut, and that costs money. So colleges have to decide—do we want to invest in this? Maybe the student can pay part of it, but the institution also needs to pitch in. That mindset has to be there.

And I can tell you from experience—I'm part of many IQACs and Boards of Studies across institutions. I see many affiliated colleges trying hard to improve employability. They may not have autonomy, but they are still running skill development, ability enhancement, and value-added programs. The ones that aren’t doing well are often the ones not ready to invest in such initiatives.

So yeah, I think the direction is right. Most good institutions are now very conscious of employability. The effort is there. What’s needed is a strong will—especially to back these initiatives financially and academically. That’s what will bridge the gap.

Q: Many lesser-known government colleges and universities are not performing to their full potential and are lacking in various areas, such as innovative ideas, initiatives, infrastructure, and more. What do you think these institutions should focus on to improve their reach and facilities, in order to match the offerings of private universities, beyond just financial aspects?

Yeah, money is definitely a factor—no doubt about that. But see, more than money, I strongly believe that if there's a will, there's a way. You take some of the better-performing government universities—many of them have had visionary leaders who really fought hard. I mean, they had to deal with a lot—bureaucracy, red tape, the entire government machinery—but still, they pushed through change.

Now, one thing I always say is this—you have to understand your DNA. What are you as an institution? Let’s say you have 100 faculty members, and maybe only five or six are research-focused, the rest are more teaching-oriented. Then you’re not going to become a research university overnight. That’s just not realistic. So you have to first accept and understand what kind of institution you are.

And NEP 2020 is very clear on this. If you’re a teaching-centric college, then do that well—focus on outcomes, focus on quality teaching, produce great graduates. That itself is a huge contribution. On the other hand, if your faculty base is more research-aligned—say 60 to 70 out of 100 are research-active—then sure, aim to become a research-focused institution.

So what I’m saying is, government institutions need to assess themselves honestly. If there’s a mix, maybe you can go hybrid—support both teaching and research, but strategically. The problem is, everybody wants to be everything, which doesn't work.

And this is a million-dollar question, right? How do you balance teaching, research, and administration? Honestly, there’s no fixed formula. No magic 30-30-40 rule. Each institution has to figure it out based on their strengths. But whatever path you choose—own it, commit to it. If you’re teaching-focused, excel at that. Place your students well. Build outcomes. That itself will lift the brand of the college.

Let’s be clear—an affiliated government college is never going to become an IIT. It’s just not going to happen. But that doesn’t mean it can't be excellent in its own domain. You play to your strengths. That’s the key.

Q: If you had to predict the next big transformation in internal quality assurance practices over the next decade, what would it be? And do you foresee AI blockchain or micro credential playing a major role in ensuring education policy?

Yeah, so I think we’re clearly moving into an era of transparency. That’s going to be the biggest transformation. Look, I know NAAC was in the news recently—and for the wrong reasons—but all these developments are actually pushing us towards a more transparent ecosystem. Despite all the bureaucracy, the government is doing a lot on the ICT front. They’re talking about One Nation, One Data Portal. Now, I don’t know when exactly that’s going to materialize, but the idea is solid.

What they’re aiming for is a single unified dataset. Whether it’s NAAC, NIRF, NBA, or whatever new forms these bodies take in the future—there should be one dataset that all of them use. So if you submit data once, it gets used across the board. No duplication, no confusion, and most importantly—no manipulation. Because once that kind of integration happens, it’ll be very hard to fudge anything.

Take research, for instance. Today, if you say you’ve published something, nobody’s asking for your paper directly. They just go to Scopus or Web of Science and check it. Tomorrow, for research funding, they might just directly pull records from the government’s PFMS portal. So again—transparency is the direction.

From an IQAC standpoint, I think institutions really need to get their act together. We have to automate, and not just for the sake of it, but in a way that actually makes processes efficient and reduces the burden on faculty. I keep saying this—faculty are not file-makers. Their job is teaching, research, mentoring, innovation—not clerical work. So let’s not waste their time. Instead, IQACs should have proper administrative staff, even hire MBAs if needed, people who know how to handle documentation and compliance smartly.

Now coming to AI and blockchain—yeah, these are buzzwords, and they’ll probably play a role. But I’m cautious. AI can be a great tool, especially for detecting fraud or automating workflows, but I’d rather take a wait-and-watch approach. Let’s see how it evolves and where it genuinely adds value.

Micro-credentials, though—that’s going to come in much sooner. Already, there’s talk about fractal credits, modular learning, all of that. But again, recognition matters. Just any certificate from any platform won’t cut it. If you want academic credit, it has to be from approved platforms like SWAYAM, NPTEL—ones that are officially recognized. Coursera and others might be okay, but only if they’re tied to a framework that’s accepted by the system.

So yeah, change is coming. Some parts we embrace immediately, some we evaluate carefully. But the mindset has to be proactive and ready to adapt.