Does better education infrastructure mean better education?
- Team Arterial
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
As India pours billions into shiny new campuses and AI labs to keep students from going abroad, critics ask: are we empowering the next generation or just turning them into cogs in a giant economic machine?
Late one night in Mumbai, 18-year-old Ananya sits at a dining table strewn with university brochures. On one side lie glossy pamphlets from Canada and Australia promising cutting-edge labs and creative freedom. On the other, a printout of India’s latest 2026 Budget highlights, where Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman touts new “University Townships”, gleaming education hubs near industrial corridors designed to rival foreign campuses. Her parents desperately want her to stay. The government, after all, is investing heavily to “provide quality education” at home and lure back students like her. Yet Ananya is unconvinced. Can good infrastructure and large-scale education hubs really sufficient to make education and employability better?
Building Hubs to Curb the Brain Drain
This year’s Union Budget announcement of five new integrated “university townships” came with a clear intent: stem the exodus of Indian students seeking quality education overseas. States have pushed for these projects to cater to students who’d otherwise go abroad, Sitharaman explained. In 2024, a record 1.33 million Indian students were enrolled in foreign universities — nearly double the figure from 2022. India now sends more students overseas than any other country.
For the government, these new education hubs are a bold bid to plug that leak. The vision: modern campuses with world-class infrastructure, research labs, housing, and industry tie-ups. The Budget 2026 theme is clear: education should link directly to economic output. To many, this practical approach is long overdue.
Yet, behind the fanfare lies an uncomfortable question: Will all this new spending actually translate into better learning and job outcomes? For students like Ananya, it’s not the lack of fancy campuses pushing them away; it’s the quality gap. India has built one of the world’s largest higher education systems, over 53,000 colleges and nearly 1,400 universities, but not a single Indian institution ranks among the top 100 globally.
Can New Campuses Fix Old Problems?
Critics argue that the government’s splashy new projects tacitly admit a hard truth: many existing Indian universities are underperforming. The problem isn’t quantity, India has opened IITs and IIMs in almost every region. The problem is quality.
Across premier institutions, nearly 28.5% of teaching posts remain vacant. At the senior professor level, over 50% are unfilled. These numbers translate to overflowing classes, overstretched faculty, and often uninspired instruction. Meanwhile, India spends only 0.64% of GDP on R&D, compared to 3.5% in the U.S. or nearly 5% in South Korea. That underinvestment shows: our universities publish fewer high-impact papers, file fewer patents, and attract less global collaboration. And with the onset of Artificial Intelligence, clubbed with the “Jugaarh” Indian mentality, this quality is dropping further.
Many educationists wonder: instead of spending crores on new hubs, why not invest in improving facilities and faculty at existing universities? The risk is deepening inequality within the system, elite campuses near tech corridors versus crumbling state colleges in rural areas. Inclusive excellence is harder than ribbon-cutting but more impactful.
Degrees vs Skills: India’s Employability Crisis
When half of your college graduates are not employable, something is broken. Only 51.25% of Indian graduates are considered job-ready, according to the government’s own Economic Survey. It’s better than a decade ago but still means every second degree-holder may not be workplace-ready.
Curriculum and teaching methods have lagged behind market needs. Soft skills, critical thinking, and practical training often fall by the wayside. As recently as 2012, only 2.2% of Indians aged 15–59 had received any formal vocational training. Despite improvements, a cultural bias persists: vocational paths are seen as less prestigious.
The Budget did acknowledge this gap. New Centers of Excellence for Skilling and expansion of apprenticeships were announced. There is also a digital thrust: creator labs in schools and colleges to build AVGC and AI skills. But will that be enough? Implementation lags, faculty training gaps, and lack of curriculum overhaul often hobble these initiatives. A modern classroom is only as good as the educator in it.
And here lies a paradox: educated youth are more likely to be unemployed. In 2022, 29% of Indian graduates were jobless, compared to just 3% of the less educated. The system isn’t equipping students with market-relevant skills, pushing many into roles far below their qualifications.
The Missing Pieces: Life Skills and Civic Education
In the race to create job-ready graduates, have we forgotten the human side of education? Civic sense, empathy, financial literacy, and personal safety are barely mentioned in the Budget. Schools rarely teach digital safety or gender sensitivity, let alone consent or basic financial planning.
Some pilot programs exist. In Mumbai, municipal schools have begun teaching financial literacy, funded with a modest budget. Students learn to open bank accounts and manage pocket money. But such efforts are isolated. Nationwide, only 16.7% of students are financially literate. Without a systemic push, these critical life skills will remain an afterthought.
There’s a growing consensus among educators that schools must prepare students for life, not just exams. Holistic education is part of the NEP 2020 vision, but it hasn’t translated into widespread practice. There are no large-scale national schemes to integrate civics, ethics, or emotional learning into school curricula.
The Supply Chain of Youth Labor
India’s youth are seen as a demographic dividend – 65% of the population is under 35. The Budget calls them "Yuva Shakti" and wants to channel their energy into nation-building. But some fear this is becoming a workforce pipeline where students are valued more for economic output than personal growth.
The gig economy exemplifies this. Millions of young Indians now deliver groceries, drive cabs, or freelance online. These jobs offer flexibility but little security. Social protections are thin. The new labor codes emphasize ease of hiring and firing but say little about gig worker rights.
It’s a reality that troubles youth like 22-year-old Rohan, who rides 12 hours a day delivering packages. He has a degree, but no job security. For him, the promise of education has not translated into stability. The Budget’s silence on workplace exploitation and labor rights is deafening.
To its credit, the government did announce funds for mental health and student-led startups. There’s also a push for digital education and AI labs. These are positive signs, but isolated. Empowering students as creators and leaders will take more than infrastructure; it needs mindset shifts, mentor networks, and sustained support.
Does Better Tech Mean Better Education?
As India races to digitize classrooms and build AI labs, it’s time to ask: Does better infrastructure with more digital tech truly mean better education and earning potential for students?
The answer lies in how tech is deployed. Smartboards don’t automatically make teaching smarter. AI labs won’t produce innovators unless students are trained to think critically. It’s not the hardware but the humanware that determines outcomes. Without teacher training, flexible pedagogy, and equitable access, tech becomes window-dressing.
Digital tools can amplify good teaching, not replace it. If ed-tech is rolled out without inclusivity or understanding, it may widen divides rather than bridge them. India must ensure that its tech push in education doesn’t become just a procurement drive but a platform for transformation.
A Generation at the Crossroads
Ananya’s dilemma mirrors that of millions. Should she trust the promise of reformed Indian education or seek a future abroad? On paper, the government has taken steps: more funding, more institutions, more digital tools. But students don’t live on paper. They live in classrooms with absent teachers, in towns without internships, in job markets with few opportunities.
The choice before India isn’t whether to build more campuses. It’s whether to build an education system that empowers individuals, not just industries. Are we producing citizens or just workers? Do we want thinkers or task-doers?
The government says it wants job creators, not seekers. If so, it must go beyond buildings and budgets. It must invest in imagination, inquiry, and integrity. Education must be more than employability. It must be about enabling young Indians to understand the world, shape it, and thrive in it.
Because the real dividend isn’t demographic. It’s human.
Comments