Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
CUET Has Changed Who Enters Delhi University
For decades, Delhi University admissions were measured in impossible percentages. After CUET, the question is no longer only how much students scored, but how wisely theynavigate choice.
This is the real meaning of Delhi University’s admission transformation. The shift from theold cut-off system to CUET and the Common Seat Allocation System is not merely atechnical reform in admission procedure. It marks a deeper national transition from board- mark anxiety to a standardised, digital and preference-based admission culture.
The cut-off era had prestige, but also inequality
The old DU admission system had drama. It had prestige. It had the annual spectacle of 99 percent cut-offs, anxious parents, newspaper headlines and students moving between colleges in hope of a better list. But it also carried structural inequality. India does not have one uniform school board. It has CBSE, ICSE, state boards and many marking cultures. Some boards are stricter, some are more liberal, and some students entered the DU race with invisible advantages. In a country as educationally diverse as India, marks alone could not always provide a fair comparison.
This is the point Delhi University Vice Chancellor Prof. Yogesh Singh has repeatedly stressed. In an interview reported by the Economic Times, he said CUET has created a “level playing field” for students from different boards and regions. He also argued that the new system has helped DU draw students from across boards, states and socio-economic backgrounds.
CUET changed the basis of competition
The phrase matters. A “level playing field” is not a slogan in the DU context. It is a correction of an old imbalance. Under the cut-off system, a student from a stricter board could lose out despite strong ability. A student from a smaller town could feel excluded from the hidden grammar of Delhi admissions. A student from a village or less visible school system could find DU psychologically distant. CUET has not removed all inequalities, but it has changed the basis of competition.
Prof. Singh’s most important defence of CUET is not that the system is perfect. It is that it has widened representation. In another interview with ET Education, he said the composition of DU classrooms has changed, with students from small towns and villages joining Delhi University in larger numbers. He also observed that CUET has reduced over-representation from certain segments and brought greater diversity to classrooms.
DU classrooms are becoming more national
This is the heart of the reform. DU is not just admitting students differently; it is beginning to look different inside its classrooms.
The Common Seat Allocation System has also changed the psychology of admission. The older model asked students to watch cut-offs and see where they fit. The new model asks them to participate actively: register, map subjects, fill preferences, study programme-college combinations, wait for allocation, decide whether to freeze or upgrade, track vacancies and respond to deadlines. Admission has moved from a passive cut-off culture to an active choice culture.
Admission is now about strategy, not marks alone
This has empowered students, but it has also made the process more complex. The new DU applicant carries not only a score but also a strategy. They must understand course demand, college reputation, upgrade rounds, category rules and digital deadlines. For well-informed students, this can widen opportunity. For first-generation learners, it can create anxiety. That is why CUET-CSAS must be accompanied by counselling, helplines, webinars, multilingual guidance and clear public communication.
No reform at this scale is free from friction. Prof. Singh himself has acknowledged the concern around coaching. In the ET Education interview, he said there is a “flip side” in terms of coaching and argued that the CUET paper should be designed so that a serious student of the NCERT curriculum can attempt it without needing coaching.
Coaching is the caution, not the conclusion
This is a necessary caution. If CUET becomes another coaching-driven race, it will reproduce some of the very inequalities it was meant to address. The test must remain accessible, reasonable and curriculum grounded. The measure of its success will not be the number of coaching centres it creates, but the number of talented students it enables from diverse backgrounds.
Still, the larger direction is significant. According to Prof. Singh, DU now receives students from “most states,” including large cities, small cities and villages. He described Delhi University as “mini India,” a phrase that captures the public-university ideal better than any admission statistic.
A national university needs a national classroom
A public university must not become the preserve of a few boards, a few cities or a few social groups. Delhi University’s greatness lies in prestige, but also in access. CUET, despite its anxieties, has helped reposition DU as a national classroom. It has made the admission process more standardised, more digital and more open to students beyond the old metropolitan imagination.
The next challenge is refinement. CUET must remain fair. CSAS must become easier to navigate. Preference filling must be supported by better guidance. Upgrade rounds must be communicated clearly. Digital systems must be student friendly. And DU must keep studying who enters, who struggles, who benefits and who needs support.
The reform is still evolving.
But the direction of reform is clear. Delhi University has moved from the tyranny of the cut-off list to the discipline of a national entrance and digital allocation system. It has not ended admission anxiety; it has changed its nature. It has not solved every inequality; it has created a more credible framework to address them. It has not made DU less aspirational; it has made that aspiration more nationally distributed.
For a university that has always symbolised Indian ambition, this is no small achievement.
The cut-off list once told students whether DU had space for them. CUET now asks them to compete, choose and enter a larger national field. That is why Delhi University’s admission reform is not just about procedure. It is about rewriting India’s admission imagination.
Submitted by: Prof. (Dr.) Hitesh D Raviya
Vice Dean and Professor of English, Faculty of Arts, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.