The Logic Behind Consolidation
For years, India’s technical education landscape has been defined by a paradox: a massive number of engineering colleges, yet a persistent shortage of industry-ready graduates. Many institutions suffer from low admission rates, inadequate infrastructure,
and a lack of qualified faculty. In response, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has pursued a policy of consolidation, allowing and even encouraging the merger of struggling colleges with more successful ones. The stated goal is to weed out non-performing assets and improve the overall quality of technical education by creating larger, more viable institutions. On paper, the strategy makes sense. Instead of letting hundreds of colleges with near-zero enrolment wither away, merging them is seen as a way to pool resources, streamline operations, and raise academic benchmarks. The policy is part of a broader, well-intentioned cleanup of a sector that expanded too quickly and without sufficient oversight.
The Unseen Costs of Mergers
However, this top-down approach to consolidation often ignores the human element. When two institutions merge, the disruption for students and faculty can be immense. Students who enrolled in one college, with its specific culture and faculty, may find themselves part of a completely different institution overnight. This raises immediate concerns about continuity. Will their course credits transfer seamlessly? Will they be taught by the same professors? What happens to the institutional identity and alumni network they were promised? For faculty, mergers create uncertainty around job security, seniority, and workload. The process can lead to significant administrative chaos, with conflicting curricula, examination schedules, and academic calendars that take years to harmonise. This turbulence directly impacts the learning environment, often leaving students and teachers in a state of prolonged limbo.
The Illusion of Quality Improvement
The central assumption behind consolidation is that merging a weak college with a strong one will elevate the former. But the opposite can also be true: the stronger institution can be dragged down by the operational and financial baggage of the weaker one. Simply combining assets on a balance sheet does not automatically fix deep-rooted problems like poor teaching quality, outdated lab facilities, or a non-existent research culture. True quality improvement requires a sustained focus on academic processes—curriculum reform, faculty training, and industry collaboration—not just structural adjustments. In many cases, consolidation becomes a box-ticking exercise that improves statistics on paper but fails to address the fundamental disconnect between what is taught and what the industry needs, a key reason for the high unemployability rate among engineering graduates.
A Better Path: A Case for Holistic Review
Instead of focusing solely on closures and mergers, the regulatory focus should shift towards a more holistic and supportive review process. Before forcing a merger, a thorough, independent audit of an institution's challenges is necessary. This review must go beyond enrolment numbers and financial statements to assess academic quality, student feedback, and faculty morale. Perhaps a college is struggling not because it is unviable, but because it needs targeted support in specific areas, such as faculty development or curriculum modernization. Offering institutions a path to self-improvement—with clear benchmarks and support—should be the first step. Consolidation should be a final resort, not a default solution. This approach requires a move from being a mere regulator to a developmental partner, one that nurtures institutions and prioritises the long-term career prospects of students above administrative ease. Ensuring continuity of education and genuinely enhancing quality must be the primary metrics of success.
