It is a mixed experience, with both strengths and shortcomings. However, as a public engineering university, the academic framework could have been far more dynamic and forward-looking—aligned with the standards such an institution is expected to uphold. Unfortunately, there is little substantive evidence of that. Even when initiatives do exist, they often appear to be driven by obligation rather than genuine academic vision.
Students in our country enter engineering universities with considerable aspirations. Measured against those expectations, CUET appears to be trailing. It would be inaccurate to generalize this across all departments; nevertheless, the smaller departments are evidently at a disadvantage.
Moreover, the student–faculty relationship warrants significant improvement. Both parties tend to advance their positions from a primarily self-referential standpoint, which leads to constructive proposals being sidelined. For an institution like CUET, such a dynamic is undeniably counterproductive.