CBCS: Opening doors and raising tough questions

Dr Bipul Kumar Talukdar

(The author is an Assistant Professor at Jorhat Engineering College, Assam. He can be reached at bipulktalukdar@gmail.com)

As India strives to modernise its higher education system, the Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS) has emerged as one of the most promising reforms. Initially adopted around 2015 and further reinforced by the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, CBCS offers greater flexibility, opportunities for interdisciplinary study, personalised educational trajectories, and enhanced credit mobility. However, its rollout raises significant challenges that necessitate careful consideration.

Instead of adhering to a rigid curriculum, CBCS offers a ‘cafeteria’ approach, allowing students to choose from a variety of core, elective, skill, and foundation courses. This customisation fosters engagement and strong outcomes-based learning and enables students to design interdisciplinary academic paths and learn at their own pace. The CBCS framework is consistent with global educational models such as the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and Canada’s transfer system, making graduates globally compatible, and caters to a wide range of student aspirations, including the integration of humanities with technology or the incorporation of entrepreneurship within science degrees. Additionally, CBCS facilitates seamless movement between institutions and flexible entry-exit points under NEP 2020 (e.g., certificate after one year, degree after four), supported by the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC).

The Economic Survey for 2023-2024 indicates that only approximately 51% of graduates are deemed job-ready, while the Mercer-Mettl 2025 index projects a decline in employability to 42.6% for various cohorts. Employers are looking beyond degrees, seeking graduates who possess soft skills like critical thinking, communication skills and learning agility. For students entering today’s job market, a well-implemented CBCS programme that combines guided elective options with internships and clear transcripts can better prepare them than a rigid traditional syllabus. The flexible, stackable credits and multiple entry-exit points allow students to curate portfolios that align with sector-specific roles and easily switch paths as market demands change. Interdisciplinary skill electives and continuous project-based assessments improve employability prospects by simulating workplace delivery cycles. The formal incorporation of life skills and soft skills modules addresses some of the biggest hiring pain points, including communication, teamwork, and leadership. Additionally, industry-co-designed value-added courses, supported by mandatory industry partnerships and nano-credentials in areas such as AI, data, green technology, and cybersecurity, can create promising avenues for both students and employers through CBCS.

However, until issues related to standardisation, faculty capabilities, and industry integration are systematically addressed, the advantages of CBCS will remain a possibility rather than a certainty. A CBCS programme that lacks resources will produce graduates with fragmented knowledge, leading to confusion among potential employers. Many universities tweak credit weights and rubrics and offer relative grading mechanisms, which make it challenging to compare students’ standards effectively. ResearchGateanalysis identifies this as the primary issue with CBCS.

The successful implementation of continuous assessment, digital credit tracking, and interdisciplinary laboratories requires retraining staff and capital investment. However, many universities and colleges face challenges due to insufficient staffing and outdated infrastructure and lack integrated digital systems for managing credit tracking, online course registration, moderation, and assessments. Overburdened faculty members often face challenges in managing multiple courses, diverse student groups, and frequent formative and summative assessments. This pressure sometimes results in shortened syllabi and necessitates covering more content in less time. To tackle these challenges, the implementation of blended learning and modular instructional approaches is essential; however, their impact is restricted by inadequate technological infrastructure.

With ABC provisioning, the learning platform for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), particularly SWAYAM, offers over 2,000 certified courses, and AICTE encourages students to take these as electives. While this enriches the course ecosystem, it also leads to decision fatigue. Students often tend to select “popular” electives over those that align with their individual career goals. This makes academic counselling a linchpin in CBCS success. Without adequately trained mentors and a well-structured guidance framework, the CBCS model can become a chaotic buffet, leading to misaligned learning and shallow specialisation, while the provision of such a system can transform CBCS from a confusing selection of options into meaningful learning pathways. Additionally, the framework for credit transfer of web-based courses should be carefully materialised. It is also crucial that the quality and content of such courses are regularly monitored and updated with input from experts across various sectors, including industry, academia, and research and development.

One of the less visible but deeply entrenched challenges is the traditional mindset of faculty and administrators. There is a resistance to decentralising control over curriculum and transitioning from teacher-centred instruction to student-centred learning. Changing these mindsets requires time and intentional effort. CBCS demands dynamic and responsive educators. Therefore, ensuring faculty readiness through continuous professional development, building institutional capacity, and implementing policy-level incentives is crucial to facilitating this shift. Faculties must be supported through technology training programmes, curriculum design training, peer learning opportunities, interdisciplinary research infrastructure, entrepreneurship programmes, and exposure to industry practices. Furthermore, nurturing a culture that encourages open dialogue between educators and students is vital, as it fosters mutual respect and shared responsibility in the learning experience. The implementation of meaningful mentor-mentee relationships can significantly contribute to this effort. Effective feedback loops involving all stakeholders, including students, teachers, industry, and alumni, should guide continuous upgrades.

In a nutshell, CBCS embodies a transformative vision for Indian higher education, prioritising flexibility, skill development, and alignment with global standards. However, the true challenge lies in its implementation. While UGC and AICTE have mandated the adoption of CBCS, there is currently no centralised monitoring system to ensure consistent quality across institutions. Without robust digital infrastructure, regular quality controls, adequate faculty support, and effective student guidance, CBCS risks exacerbating inequality and institutional strain. Moving forward will require coordinated investments from policymakers, university leaders, and educators balancing between innovation and realism. If India can navigate these challenges, CBCS could emerge as a key driver of a globally competitive and student-centred university ecosystem. Now, the question is: Can we ensure it works for every institution, not just a privileged few?