Why university rules about equivalency certificates need urgent reform

Why university rules about equivalency certificates need urgent reform

As higher education in India becomes more flexible and multidisciplinary, the continued requirement of the Equivalency Certificate – that students need to submit when applying at different universities - remains a barrier to student mobility. What initially appears to be a simple academic verification has, over time, transformed into a complex bureaucratic process.

At its core, the system is meant to ensure that a student’s prior degree meets the receiving university’s academic standards. However, without a national policy and a clear mechanism, universities have started to see equivalency as a gatekeeping tool rather than a standardisation process. This has led to confusion, inconsistency, and, more worryingly, systemic exclusion.

To begin with, securing equivalency requires students to gather an exhaustive set of documents: detailed syllabi for every semester, course scheme and regulations, the programme structure and duration, mode of examination and even evidence such as the institution’s NAAC grade and NIRF ranking. The university’s Registrar must authenticate these, a process that can take weeks. After these documents are submitted, their application moves through different layers of scrutiny, typically beginning with the relevant Board of Studies and ending with the Academic Council.

This long process does not guarantee approval. Many universities insist on an unwritten rule that the syllabus submitted must match at least 60% of their own. This has no basis in the University Grants Commission’s regulations, yet is widely and rigidly enforced. It is also deeply flawed because no two universities design their programmes with uniformity in mind. Autonomous colleges, state universities, and institutions across different States develop their syllabi independently based on regional needs, faculty expertise, and institutional priorities. Expecting a significant percentage of similarity between such diverse curricular frameworks is unrealistic.

The situation becomes even more complicated when students graduate from institutions offering double-major or triple-major degrees. These programmes have expanded steadily in India over the last decade, long before the introduction of the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme. Their purpose is to broaden learning and enable students to pursue postgraduate studies in any one of their major subjects. But when students apply for higher studies elsewhere, they are forced to prove equivalency in one of the subjects they studied, even when the postgraduate programme does not require subject-specific eligibility. A student with a triple-major degree in Economics, Political Science and Journalism may be denied admission to a Master of Social Work programme simply because none of the subjects matches the 60% similarity criterion, even though MSW programmes typically accept graduates from any discipline.

A recent case illustrates the system’s irrationality. A student who completed a triple-major degree in Psychology, Zoology, and Botany from a university in Karnataka sought admission to an M.A. English programme at a university in Kerala. According to the regulations, a graduate with the required marks and performance in the entrance examination was eligible, regardless of the subjects studied at the undergraduate level. The student met these requirements and qualified through the entrance test.