To create a more streamlined platform for undergraduate admissions across universities, CUET UG was introduced in 2022. It was aimed at reducing dependence on varying standards of class XII board exams and having a uniform entry to higher education. However, four years since implementation, the examination continues to struggle with technical glitches, last-minute scheduling changes, exam centre mismanagement, and concerns regarding subject mapping.
Experts say while CUET UG has succeeded in bringing admissions under a single framework, several challenges continue to persist. A major problem is uncertainty over examination, result, and admission timelines. Prof Bhaskar Bhattacharya, chairperson, Central Admission Committee, BHU, says delays in the examination and admission cycle are key concerns associated with CUET. Recalling the 2024 admission cycle which witnessed delays, he says, “Although subsequent cycles have seen some improvement, delays remain a recurring issue. This year too, while the situation is somewhat better, the exam process was extended due to technical glitches in some centres. With the examination process continuing until June, the result announcement will take additional time. Universities are unlikely to receive results before late July. Once results are delayed, no university will be able to complete its admissions within July. The entire academic calendar will get pushed back.”
The impact of such delays extends beyond admission schedules. Universities often find themselves with little choice but to compress academic calendars to complete courses on time. “Once universities commit to CUET-based admissions, they have no option but to wait for the results. To make up for the time lost, institutions reduce breaks and vacations. Ultimately, the burden falls on students and teachers,” he says.
While academic performance may remain manageable, the social and administrative burden becomes very high, he says. “Students deserve adequate vacation time, and teachers should not have to repeatedly compress teaching schedules; these are issues that need to be addressed,” he adds.
Subject Experts
Academics should have a greater role in examination design and content development, he says suggesting that stronger engagement with subject experts could improve the overall quality and credibility of the examination. Additionally, NTA, the testing agency, should work towards improving its public image and credibility, adds Prof Bhattacharya.
The CUET system itself needs reconsideration, says Kamal Khanna, former principal and educationist. He says, “CUET UG should be discontinued, and universities should return to their pre-CUET admission processes, which was based on marks and cut offs. However, if the examination is to continue, it should be administered by academics and teachers rather than bureaucrats.”
The system needs robust measures to address recurring server-related issues and improve facilities at examination centres for candidates. “The results of CUET should ideally be declared within a fortnight. Delays in the declaration of results force many students to seek admission in private universities. This is one of the reasons why thousands of seats remain vacant every year in central universities including DU,” he says.
When managing examinations on a national scale, CBT mode reduces logistical complexity and improves overall management. “The system just needs to be implemented more effectively,” says Prof Bhattacharya, adding, “It should be ensured that CUET is conducted as per the schedule, and that results should ideally be available by mid-June. Only then can universities complete admissions by July and begin academic sessions without disruption. Once timelines become predictable, many of the current challenges will automatically be reduced.”
Centralised Admission Platform
Emphasising that CUET remains valuable, Prof Bhattacharya says, “Prior to the introduction of the common entrance test, students often had to fill out multiple application forms, pay separate fees, and appear for different entrance exams conducted by individual universities, which burdened the students,” he says, adding that the reform remains incomplete until there is a centralised admission platform for all participating universities.
“There was a proposal that admissions across universities should eventually be handled through a single portal, but that has not happened because different institutions follow different admission schedules and requirements. The policymakers should work on this,” says Bhattacharya.
Regional Diversity
The adoption of CUET marks by state universities is also impacting student migration and diversity as more candidates now get an opportunity to pursue higher education closer to home. Speaking on the evolution of CUET UG, Prof Bhattacharya says, “One of the primary expectations when CUET was introduced, was that it would enable students from all parts of the country to compete through a common platform and increase regional diversity in central universities. Institutions such as BHU, JNU, and University of Hyderabad, anticipated that a single national entrance examination would attract students from a wider range of geographical and socio-economic backgrounds. However, this expectation has not been fully realised. Instead, institutions witnessed better diversity when they conducted their own entrance examinations. Earlier, many students would look forward to studying in central universities. However, now with a growing number of state universities and private institutions accepting CUET scores, students are getting a chance to stay in their states. That may be one factor affecting mobility patterns.”
To make the examination process more inclusive, Prof Bhattacharya calls for greater attention to language accessibility and regional language support. “CBT allows questions to be offered in multiple languages. There should be a greater effort to provide high-quality translations and regional language options. This would encourage wider participation and make students,” he adds.
