Underemployment in India: A Silent Crisis in the Shadow of Unemployment

 India’s economic narrative often revolves around unemployment—the stark reality of millions unable to find jobs. With a labor force of over 500 million and a youth unemployment rate hovering around 23% (as per recent CMIE data), it’s no surprise that joblessness dominates headlines. But lurking beneath this crisis is another, less discussed issue: underemployment. While unemployment leaves people jobless, underemployment traps skilled workers in roles that underutilize their education, skills, and potential. It’s a systemic failure that raises tough questions about India’s education system, industry demands, and societal priorities.

The Scale of Underemployment

Underemployment is harder to quantify than unemployment, but its impact is no less profound. It manifests in two primary forms: visible underemployment (working fewer hours than desired) and invisible underemployment (working in jobs that don’t match one’s qualifications or skills). In India, the latter is particularly pervasive. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), over 30% of India’s employed youth are overqualified for their jobs—a figure that reflects the mismatch between education and employment.

Consider the examples: graduates from prestigious institutions like BITS Pilani working as quality assurance (QA) testers, IIT engineers building dashboards in Power BI, or investment bankers churning out PowerPoint presentations. These are not isolated anecdotes but symptoms of a broader trend. A 2023 study by the Azim Premji University found that nearly 40% of engineering graduates in India work in jobs that don’t require their specialized training. Civil engineers pivot to software development, not out of passion but because the job market for their field is saturated or underpaid. This isn’t just a personal tragedy—it’s an economic inefficiency that stifles innovation and growth.

Why Are Graduates Underemployed?

The roots of underemployment lie in a confluence of structural and systemic issues:

1. Misaligned Education System: India’s higher education system, particularly in engineering and technical fields, is often criticized for being outdated and theoretical. Curricula at even top-tier institutes like IITs and NITs emphasize rote learning over practical, industry-relevant skills. For instance, a civil engineering graduate may excel in structural analysis but lack exposure to modern software tools or project management—skills that employers prioritize. Meanwhile, the tech industry, which absorbs over 50% of engineering graduates, demands coding proficiency, often irrelevant to non-computer science disciplines.
2. Skewed Admission Processes: India’s hyper-competitive entrance exams (JEE, NEET, etc.) prioritize rote memorization and rank-based admissions. Students who don’t score high enough for coveted branches like computer science often settle for fields like civil or mechanical engineering, only to find limited opportunities post-graduation. This forces them into unrelated roles, like software development, where they must upskill from scratch.
3. Industry Expectations vs. Reality: Corporate India often prioritizes cost over talent utilization. Roles like QA testing or dashboard creation are low-cost, repetitive tasks that companies assign to highly qualified graduates to cut expenses. Investment bankers spending hours on PowerPoint decks aren’t honing their financial acumen—they’re filling a gap in operational efficiency. This reflects a broader corporate mindset that values immediate output over long-term innovation.
4. Economic Pressures and Job Scarcity: With India’s GDP growth slowing to around 6% in 2024 (per IMF estimates), job creation hasn’t kept pace with the 12 million young people entering the workforce annually. Graduates from elite colleges, facing intense competition, often accept “safe” jobs that don’t match their skills rather than risk unemployment. For instance, software roles, even low-skill ones, offer better pay and stability than core engineering jobs, pushing civil or mechanical engineers to pivot.

The Human and Economic Cost

Underemployment isn’t just a statistic—it’s a personal and societal loss. Graduates who spend four years and lakhs of rupees on a degree only to work in unrelated, low-skill jobs face disillusionment and mental health challenges. A 2022 survey by Deloitte found that 60% of Indian Gen Z workers felt their jobs didn’t align with their career goals, contributing to burnout and disengagement.

Economically, underemployment squanders human capital. When an IIT graduate spends their day building basic dashboards, their potential to innovate or solve complex problems is wasted. This inefficiency hampers India’s ambition to become a $5 trillion economy. Moreover, it perpetuates a cycle where students chase “safe” degrees (like computer science) over passion-driven fields, further skewing the talent pool.

Is the Education System to Blame?

The question of whether college education is being “used” in jobs is central to this crisis. If an IIT graduate’s role could be performed by someone with a short-term coding bootcamp, what was the point of their rigorous education? This disconnect prompts a deeper question: should India’s education system pivot to better match industry expectations?

The answer isn’t straightforward. On one hand, aligning curricula with industry needs—emphasizing skills like coding, data analysis, or project management—could reduce underemployment. Some institutes, like IIITs, have already integrated industry-oriented courses, with partnerships from tech giants like Infosys or TCS. On the other hand, a purely utilitarian approach risks stifling creativity and critical thinking, which elite institutions are meant to foster. A civil engineer shouldn’t have to become a software developer, but the system must ensure their skills are valued in their own field.

Reforming the curriculum is only half the battle. Entrance exams need an overhaul to prioritize aptitude over rote learning. Industry must also step up, creating roles that leverage specialized skills rather than funneling graduates into generic tech jobs. Government policies, like incentives for core engineering sectors (e.g., infrastructure or manufacturing), could balance job distribution across fields.

A Broken System, But Not Hopeless

India’s underemployment crisis is a symptom of a misaligned ecosystem—education, industry, and policy working at cross-purposes. It’s tempting to call the system “fucked,” as frustration mounts among graduates who feel cheated by their degrees. But the issue, while systemic, isn’t intractable.

Solutions lie in multi-pronged reforms:

• Education: Update curricula to blend theoretical rigor with practical skills. Introduce flexible tracks allowing students to explore interdisciplinary fields.
• Industry: Encourage companies to create roles that utilize specialized skills, supported by tax incentives or public-private partnerships.
• Policy: Invest in sectors like infrastructure, renewable energy, and manufacturing to absorb core engineering talent.
• Career Guidance: Provide better counseling to align students’ interests with market realities, reducing the pressure to chase “safe” degrees.

Underemployment may not grab headlines like unemployment, but its toll on India’s youth and economy is undeniable. It’s time to stop treating graduates as cogs in a machine and start valuing their potential. Only then can India turn its demographic dividend into a true asset, rather than a source of frustration.

Unveiling the Lesser-Known Admission Pathway at BITS Pilani: Faculty Children and the MSc Route

 The Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani is renowned for its rigorous admission process, primarily through the highly competitive BITS Admission Test (BITSAT) or direct admission for board toppers. However, a lesser-known and rarely discussed pathway exists that allows certain students—often children of BITS Pilani faculty or their relatives—to gain admission without appearing for BITSAT. This practice, observed by some alumni, raises questions about fairness, academic performance, and the integrity of the admission process. Drawing from personal anecdotes and available information, this article explores this unique admission route, its implications, and the rumors surrounding it.

The Faculty Children Admission Route: How It Works

During my time at BITS Pilani around 2016, I noticed a group of students who were admitted to MSc programs, particularly MSc General Studies, without having taken the BITSAT. These students were often children of BITS faculty or, in some cases, distant relatives. Unlike the standard admission criteria, which require a minimum of 75% aggregate in Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics/Biology in Class 12, along with a competitive BITSAT score, these students seemed to bypass the entrance exam entirely. For instance, I recall a conversation with a day scholar who revealed he secured admission with just over 80% in Class 12 and had not appeared for BITSAT. This contradicts the conventional wisdom that BITS admissions are strictly merit-based, relying on BITSAT or board topper status.

The MSc programs, including a specialized MSc General Studies, appear to be the primary avenue for these admissions. Unlike the dual-degree programs (B.E. + MSc), which typically take five years, these standalone MSc courses are completed in four years. The MSc General Studies program, in particular, seems tailored for this group, as it is not commonly offered to regular BITSAT-qualified students. While most of these students are day scholars, some opt to stay in hostels, enjoying the same campus facilities as their peers.

Academic Performance and Campus Integration

Anecdotally, students admitted through this route often struggle academically. Many of them reportedly score low grades, frequently earning Ds, Es, or even NCs (Not Cleared) in courses. Their Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) typically hovers around 4 or 5 on a 10-point scale, significantly lower than the average for BITS students, who often aim for CGPAs above 7 to secure good placements or internships. Despite their academic challenges, these students are treated on par with regular students for key opportunities like Practice School 1 (PS1) and Practice School 2 (PS2), which are integral to BITS’ internship and placement ecosystem. This equal treatment, despite lower academic performance, can spark resentment among peers who earned their admission through rigorous competition.

The academic struggles of these students may stem from the less stringent admission criteria. While regular BITSAT candidates need a strong Class 12 performance and a high entrance exam score, faculty children or relatives appear to face a lower bar, with Class 12 scores as modest as 80% deemed sufficient. This discrepancy raises questions about whether these students are adequately prepared for BITS’ demanding curriculum, which is designed for high-achieving candidates.

Day Scholars vs. Hostel Life

Most students admitted through this faculty-linked pathway are day scholars, likely due to their familial ties to the campus. Living off-campus, they may miss out on the full BITS experience, which includes vibrant hostel life, extracurricular activities, and fests. However, those who choose to stay in hostels integrate more fully into campus culture, participating in clubs, events, and academic activities alongside regular students. This flexibility suggests that the institute accommodates these students’ preferences, further highlighting the special treatment they receive.

Rumors of Bribery and Ethical Concerns

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this admission pathway is the rumor that some faculty members charge money to secure admission for distant relatives or non-faculty-connected students. While these claims remain unverified, they cast a shadow over the integrity of the process. The idea that admission to a prestigious institution like BITS could be influenced by financial transactions undermines the institute’s reputation for meritocracy. If true, such practices would disproportionately benefit those with connections or financial means, sidelining deserving candidates who lack access to such networks.

The notion that some admitted students are not direct children of faculty but distant relatives adds to the opacity of the process. Without transparent guidelines or official documentation, it’s unclear how these students qualify for admission. The lack of clarity fuels speculation and distrust among students and alumni, who perceive this as a “backdoor” entry that contradicts BITS’ commitment to fairness.

Official Stance and Lack of Transparency

BITS Pilani’s official admission policy, as outlined on its website, emphasizes BITSAT and board topper schemes as the primary routes for undergraduate admissions. There is no public mention of a special provision for faculty children or relatives. This absence of transparency makes it difficult to verify the extent of this practice or its official sanction. The MSc General Studies program, while listed among BITS’ offerings, is not prominently advertised, and its exclusivity to this group remains an open question.

The institute’s silence on this matter contrasts with its detailed documentation of other admission processes. For example, BITS explicitly states that candidates with less than 75% in PCM/PCB or those who passed Class 12 before 2023 are ineligible for BITSAT-based admission. Yet, no such criteria are outlined for faculty-linked admissions, leaving room for speculation about the rules governing this pathway.

Implications for BITS’ Meritocratic Ethos

The admission of faculty children without BITSAT challenges BITS Pilani’s reputation as a merit-driven institution. While it’s understandable that faculty might seek educational opportunities for their children, bypassing a competitive entrance exam risks diluting the institute’s academic standards. The low CGPAs of these students suggest that the current system may not adequately prepare them for success, potentially harming their own prospects and the institute’s overall academic environment.

Moreover, the equal treatment of these students in placements and internships, despite their academic struggles, can create perceptions of unfairness among peers. Regular students, who endure intense competition to secure admission and maintain high grades, may feel shortchanged when opportunities are allocated without regard to academic merit.

Conclusion

The admission of faculty children and relatives to BITS Pilani without BITSAT is a practice that, while limited in scope, raises significant questions about fairness and transparency. Observed by students like myself during our time at BITS, this pathway appears to favor a select group, often at the expense of academic rigor and institutional integrity. While these students are integrated into campus life and opportunities, their academic struggles and the rumors of unethical practices cast a shadow over the process. For BITS Pilani to uphold its meritocratic ethos, greater clarity and accountability are needed. Until then, this hidden admission route will remain a point of contention among students and alumni who value the institute’s commitment to excellence.