The Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP), introduced under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, is among the most ambitious reforms in Indian higher education in recent decades. By promoting multidisciplinary learning, academic flexibility, multiple entry and exit options, research orientation, and international compatibility, it seeks to redefine undergraduate education for a rapidly changing world.

Kerala adopted the FYUGP in 2024 and the first batch of students has now entered the fifth semester. Although the reform was widely welcomed for its progressive vision, it has also created considerable uncertainty among students, teachers, and administrators. Significantly, these concerns are not confined to Kerala alone. Across states that have adopted the programme, questions are being raised about the value of the fourth year, postgraduate pathways, employability, disciplinary depth, and institutional preparedness. The challenge, therefore, extends beyond local implementation and points to the need for greater national policy coordination. As FYUGP moves from vision to practice, it is important to examine not only opportunities it offers but also questions that remain unresolved.

Exit options

One of the FYUGP’s most celebrated features is its multiple exit options. Students may leave after one year with a certificate, after two years with a diploma, after three years with a Bachelor’s degree, or after four years with either an Honours degree or an Honours with Research degree. The policy is designed to accommodate diverse educational journeys and reduce student dropouts. Yet, the practical value of these exit options remains uncertain. What advantages do a one-year certificate or a two-year diploma offer in the job-market? More importantly, if the four-year programme eventually becomes the norm, will students who exit after three years be at a disadvantage compared with those who complete the fourth year?

The fourth year itself presents a dilemma. Students can opt either for an Honours degree or an Honours with Research, which provides a pathway to doctoral studies without the Master’s degree. At first glance, this appears to be a significant advantage. However, a student with a Master’s degree and NET qualification can immediately apply for the post of Assistant Professor. By contrast, a student who takes the direct Ph.D. route may have to wait until the doctoral degree is awarded before becoming eligible for similar positions. That is, a pathway designed to accelerate academic progression may not necessarily result in greater employability. Students need greater clarity regarding the long-term academic and professional consequences of these choices.

Depth vs. breadth

Another innovative feature is the Accelerated Degree Programme (ADP), which allows students to earn additional credits through platforms such as SWAYAM, NPTEL, and other approved online courses. By accumulating the required credits in advance, students may complete a three-year degree in five semesters, or a four-year Honours degree in seven semesters. While this approach reflects international trends toward flexible, self-paced learning, its implementation has created considerable uncertainty. Many students remain unclear about which specific courses to choose, how many credits are required, and how much online coursework can substitute regular classroom learning. There is also confusion about whether these additional credits should be earned through discipline-specific courses, multidisciplinary courses, or skill-based programmes. In the absence of clear guidelines, students find it difficult to make informed decisions about the accelerated pathway.

Under FYUGP, the first three years are devoted substantially to multidisciplinary courses, value-added courses, skill-enhancement programmes, languages, and minor disciplines, while much of the advanced disciplinary content is reserved for the fourth year. Although this structure broadens students’ intellectual horizons and promotes cross-disciplinary learning, it also raises concerns about the depth of subject knowledge among those who exit after three years. While interdisciplinary exposure undoubtedly enriches the educational experience, a university degree must also ensure rigorous engagement with the student’s primary discipline. If a substantial portion of the core disciplinary content is concentrated in the fourth year, an important question arises: will students who exit after three years possess the level of subject mastery traditionally associated with a university degree?

One of the strongest arguments in favour of FYUGP is its potential to improve international mobility. Many universities in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe prefer applicants with four-year UG degrees for admission to Master’s programmes. In this regard, FYUGP undoubtedly enhances the global comparability of Indian qualifications. Yet, equivalence in duration does not automatically translate into equivalence in quality. In North America, UG education is fundamentally credit-based. Students graduate upon completing the required credits, whether it takes three, four, or six years. By contrast, Indian universities continue to operate within relatively fixed programme durations.

The challenge, therefore, extends beyond merely adding an extra year. The real test is whether FYUGP can deliver the academic flexibility, research opportunities, and learning outcomes associated with established international systems. At the same time, the implementation of FYUGP across India remains uneven. Kerala and Assam are among the few states that have adopted the framework across large segments of their higher education systems. States such as Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Telangana have introduced the model either fully or partially through selected universities. However, many institutions across the country continue to follow the traditional three-year UG structure.

This uneven transition creates uncertainty about student mobility, credit transfer, and PG admissions. How will a graduate of a four-year programme in Assam be accommodated at a university that continues to operate under the older system? Will there be provisions for lateral entry into PG programmes, or will such students still be required to complete a conventional two-year Master’s degree?

The implications of FYUGP extend beyond students and have significant consequences for universities as well. Once the first batch of four-year graduates passes out in 2027, important questions will arise regarding the future structure of PG education. Will colleges have sufficient one-year PG programmes to accommodate Honours graduates? Will universities be required to offer both one- and two-year Master’s programmes simultaneously? If the conventional two-year PG programme is gradually phased out, how will universities sustain their academic workload and existing departmental structures?

National coordination

These concerns raise broader institutional questions. To compensate for declining PG enrolment, will universities be compelled to introduce UG programmes on a larger scale? If so, what impact will this have on the traditional role of universities as centres of advanced learning and research? Will distinguished professors and researchers increasingly be drawn into UG teaching, potentially affecting the time and resources available for higher-level academic work? Such issues have far-reaching implications for the future of higher education in India and require careful deliberation and nationally coordinated policy responses before they evolve into larger systemic challenges.

The concerns surrounding FYUGP should not be interpreted as arguments against reform. Indian higher education, undoubtedly, requires greater flexibility, interdisciplinarity and international compatibility. The programme is a bold attempt to address these needs and align Indian universities with emerging global trends.

However, successful educational reform requires more than visionary policy. It demands institutional preparedness, regulatory clarity, and stakeholder confidence. Students cannot be expected to make life-changing academic decisions amid uncertainty. Questions about employability, doctoral eligibility, PG admissions, credit transfer, and professional recognition require clear, nationally coordinated responses.

While the FYUGP has opened new possibilities for Indian higher education, its long-term success will depend not only on curricular redesign but also on the willingness of policymakers, universities, and regulatory bodies to address the legitimate concerns of students and teachers. Educational reform is not only about expanding opportunities but also about building trust. Unless these anxieties are addressed through sustained dialogue and consensus, the promise of FYUGP may remain only partially fulfilled.

The writer is Dean of Student Affairs and Professor of English, Sahrdaya College of Advanced Studies, Kodakara, Thrissur.