Since CUET-PG exam 2026 results have been announced, many universities will be aggressively advertising their master’s programmes on social media platforms.
One such university, based in Vasant Kunj, positions itself as a flagbearer of sustainable development and energy. Within this university, multiple programmes are offered, both technical and non-technical.
However, this post is specifically about one of the non-technical programmes being offered: M.A. Sustainable Development Practice under the Department of Policy and Management Studies.
This course is kept open to students from all disciplines and paints an image of being diverse in nature.
But the reality is unfortunately far from the truth. The programme has potential, but its myopic approach is limiting it.
At first glance, the course outline looks interesting. The first semester is actually well-structured and covers the foundational aspects of sustainable development. That part is completely fine.
The issue starts in the second semester, where the structure feels poorly designed. Subjects like Gender in Development Practices and Population Health are made compulsory when they could easily be electives.
At the same time, there is very limited scope to choose electives from other departments, which defeats the whole idea of interdisciplinarity.
With this limited flexibility in the second semester, students who are aiming for sector-specific roles don’t really get a chance to tailor their learning. Instead, many are indirectly pushed towards a more social-sector-heavy academic direction, even though not all students intend to pursue that path.
Electives are technically introduced in the third semester, but that doesn’t really solve the problem. Many of the second-semester courses are not offered again later. The “choice” comes late and is very limited.
Faculty quality is inconsistent and, at best, average. The programme coordinator is academically inclined, which is fine, but there has been a strong bias in interaction and evaluation. Students who come from a sociology background and frequently align their responses with that perspective, or those who are better at pleasing faculty expectations, often tend to be in a better position in terms of engagement and evaluation.
He appears to have a strong preference for students interested in rural development, tribal and gender studies. This strong bias towards sociology often makes the course feel narrow and somewhat one-dimensional, which may also be a reason for its limited overall breadth.
There is another faculty member who is consistently late to afternoon classes. Despite students arriving on time, sessions often extend beyond schedule because of his delays. Over time, this lack of basic punctuality becomes frustrating.
The only faculty member who actually stands out is the professor who teaches both SDP and MBA students. He is fair, unbiased, approachable, and genuinely helpful. Most students rely on him for real academic guidance.
Administration is another major issue. One of the most important second-semester courses, “Needs Assessment,” was disrupted when a faculty member left in the middle of the semester. There was no replacement.
The course’s field visit duration, originally planned for 15 days, was reduced to 10 days and pushed into the mid-semester break around the Holi period. This created serious inconvenience, and there were also reported instances of misconduct during that time, particularly affecting female students.
The minor project/internship is completely student-led. The university expects students to independently find their own 2-month internship for the minor project, with very limited structured support.
This often creates a perception among students that the programme is more of a cash-cow than a properly structured academic degree.
Overall, the only real saving grace of this programme is its alumni network.
This review is from my cousin’s perspective.
my_qualifications: m.a iram