The introduction of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET) was hailed as a landmark reform, designed to centralize university admissions, enhance transparency, and create a level playing field. Delhi University (DU), one of the nation’s most sought-after institutions, made a pivotal shift from its traditional Class XII merit-based cut-offs to this new system. The goal was noble: uniformity and objectivity. The reality, however, has been far more complex, leading to an unprecedented crisis where thousands of seats remain vacant even after multiple admission rounds.

The Shocking Scale of Vacancies

With approximately 71,000 undergraduate seats on offer, the fact that over 9,000 went unfilled is alarming. This wasn’t an issue confined to a few peripheral colleges; the vacancies were widespread, affecting both prestigious central campuses and off-campus institutions alike. The situation became so dire that the university had to introduce a late “mop-up” round as a desperate measure to prevent the academic year from being a complete loss for these empty seats.

Which Colleges and Courses Were Hit Hardest?

While some colleges, like Bhagini Nivedita College and Aditi Mahavidyalaya, faced extremely high vacancy rates, the problem was systemic. The majority of these unfilled seats were concentrated in B.A. courses, both general and program-based. In contrast, Science and Commerce programs demonstrated more stability, though they were not entirely immune to the issue. This trend points to specific preference patterns and potential mismatches between student aspirations and the CUET allocation process.

The move to CUET was meant to solve problems, but it has inadvertently created new ones, leaving both students and colleges in a state of uncertainty.

The “Mop-Up” Round: A Controversial Solution

The introduction of a mop-up round was a pragmatic step to prevent seat wastage, but it came with its own set of controversies. This special round allowed students who had neither registered for the university’s admission portal (CSAS) nor appeared for CUET to apply. Admissions in this round were partially based on Class XII board marks, creating a parallel system that ran alongside the CUET-based one. This dual-criteria approach raised serious questions about fairness and undermined the very principle of a single, unified entrance test.

Structural Flaws in the CUET + CSAS Model

At the heart of the crisis are structural issues with the combined CUET and CSAS portal model. Many students and parents have criticized the centralized portal for its lack of transparency, particularly concerning the logic behind seat upgrades and cut-off calculations. High-scoring students often prefer to forgo seats in “off-campus” colleges, creating a domino effect of vacancies. Furthermore, local students from Delhi, who historically had a better chance based on their Class XII scores, now feel disadvantaged by the nationalized testing system.

Why Are Students Rejecting Seats?

Several factors contribute to students avoiding certain allocated seats:

• Location and Accessibility: Off-campus colleges, often located far from central Delhi, are less attractive due to long commutes and fewer amenities.
• Reputation Gap: There is a significant difference in the perceived value and brand recognition between premier colleges and others, influencing student choices.
• Delayed Allotments: The prolonged admission cycle in DU pushes many students to secure admissions in private or state universities rather than wait in uncertainty.
• Opportunity Cost: By the time later rounds of DU counselling conclude, classes have often already begun elsewhere. Students already settled in another institution are hesitant to switch, fearing academic loss.

Broader Implications and the Way Forward

The DU admissions crisis is more than just an administrative failure; it has broader implications for higher education in India. It challenges the efficacy of a “one-size-fits-all” entrance exam in a country with vast regional and socio-economic diversity. For students, it has added the stress of preparing for two major exams—boards and CUET—without a clear or predictable outcome.

To move forward, a serious re-evaluation of the CUET implementation is necessary. The process must become more student-centric and transparent. Restoring some autonomy to colleges to fill last-mile vacancies could provide much-needed flexibility. Ultimately, the goal must be to create a system that balances standardization with fairness, accessibility, and the diverse needs of the student population, thereby restoring trust in the public university admission process.