Top 3 Challenges in Management Education
Varun Nagaraj is Dean and Professor of Information Management & Analytics at SPJIMR, Mumbai. A ‘pracademic’, he brings three decades of global leadership in networking, data centre computing, IoT, and AI. Before academia, he held C-level roles in start-ups and public firms. His research explores wise, responsible innovation that balances technological progress with societal well-being.
When we look at management education in India, what stands out clearly is its starkly pyramidal structure. At the apex are the top 50 business schools. These institutions attract the brightest students, benefit from strong ties with top recruiters, and are supported by robust alumni networks and research ecosystems. Their brand value is reinforced by a virtuous cycle—the best students attract the best recruiters, and vice versa—creating a self-sustaining loop of prestige and opportunity.
However, as we move down the pyramid—beyond the top 50 or 70—the landscape changes markedly. For institutions lower down the pyramid, their ability to attract high-quality students and recruiters is uncertain. And this is deeply concerning, because the majority of management students in India are in this tier. The access and opportunity gap widens as these institutions lack the infrastructure, industry exposure, and faculty depth required to deliver high-quality education.
This fragmentation is consistent with findings by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and other regulators, on the declining fill rates in non-premier management institutions. In some cases, institutions are functioning well below capacity, and several have had to shut down due to lack of demand.
The faculty supply-demand gap
In India, we also have a situation where we actually don’t have that many PhDs in management. A typical path in the United States involves completing a PhD, becoming an Assistant Professor, and then progressing through the academic ranks. In India, however, the supply of PhDs is extremely limited due to a combination of factors: fewer high-quality doctoral programmes, limited funding, and comparatively lower incentives to pursue an academic career, especially when corporate careers tend to be more lucrative.
That’s one of the reasons we have the concept of Professors of Practice. These are industry professionals who have the passion to teach. We bring them into the classroom, even though they may not fully engage in all aspects of academic life—such as advising doctoral students or conducting research. The benefit, however, is that they contribute practical experience and can apply theory to practice in a way that is pertinent to today’s corporate environment. So, we have to make it work somehow.
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has formalised the function of Professors of Practice in Indian b-schools, giving them more leeway in recruiting business experts who might not have a PhD but have extensive subject knowledge. This regulatory change is positive, but how successfully universities strike a balance between commercial relevance and academic rigour will determine how well it is implemented.
Regulation: guardrail or constraint?
Accreditation is another area of concern. Regulation in India often stifles innovation, even if it frequently attempts to prevent exploitation—for example, by ensuring fee transparency or minimum standards. Business schools encounter restrictions if they want to provide short certificate programmes or use innovative delivery models—such as hybrid learning, stackable credits, or cross-border collaborations.
Even though the National Education Policy (NEP 2020) shows promise, the pace of reforms is slow, particularly in areas such as enabling blended delivery, stackable credentials, and international collaborations. What begins as quality control can often stifle much-needed innovation in programme structure and delivery.
Adapting the curriculum to GenAI and digital trends
The emergence of generative AI (GenAI) is one of the biggest changes we are now seeing. GenAI is quickly changing the landscape in areas such as marketing, finance, operations, and even strategy. Companies expect graduates to come in not only with foundational knowledge but also with fluency in tools and technologies that are shaping decision-making in real time.
How do we bring that into the curriculum in a timely fashion—not just in terms of content, but also in terms of delivery How do we keep the curriculum contemporary when the industry is changing so quickly That’s a real challenge. Most curriculum committees move slowly; by the time a new subject or case study is approved, the industry has already moved on.
Should we use GenAI to actually help with student engagement Should assignments be designed differently now that GenAI tools are widespread Recent global surveys—including the 2024 GMAC Prospective Students Survey—confirm that learners increasingly expect institutions to embed AI and digital fluency into core management education. Indian institutions must act quickly to remain globally competitive.
The way forward
The pyramid, the faculty crunch, the constraints of regulation, and the rapid evolution of digital tools and expectations—these are all real challenges facing management education in India today. But what also emerges clearly is that this is a moment of opportunity.
If we can find ways to leverage industry talent as educators, update our regulatory frameworks to allow innovation while maintaining quality, and adapt our teaching methods to reflect the realities of the digital and AI-driven world—we can reshape management education to serve not just the top of the pyramid, but also the vast majority of aspiring professionals across the country.
It’s a chance to revisit the purpose of management education in India—not just as a path to employment for a few, but as a platform for inclusive leadership, ethical decision-making, and sustainable development.