4th year Archives - DU Beat - Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper

Instagram has a new trend of “AI dissertations,” where students claim to proudly generate entire research projects using AI tools, questioning the absence of integrity, critical thinking, and originality in present-day academia.

“Hey Chatbot, how do we write a dissertation? What should I include so that it looks AI-free? Can you write it for me?” Sounds ridiculous, right? Yet this was the exact scenario that came to my mind when I came across Instagram posts claiming, “Guys, this is how I wrote my dissertation using AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude.”

Satire aside, a genuine question emerges: a course that was designed to foster purely research-oriented discourse now appears to be deeply permeated by AI. Has it, in some sense, begun to lose its very essence? A more plausible narrative could have been, “Here’s how I used AI to enhance my research for my dissertation.” However, the shift toward complete reliance on AI to carry out the work itself feels deeply problematic.

But what does this situation actually signal? While exploring this issue further, I came across a research paper suggesting that students who lacked early access to AI tools in their academic journey were, interestingly, the ones who later relied on them the most. Why does this happen? The study pointed out that it was not fear or lack of capability; rather, AI appeared almost “magical” to them. Its promptness, speed, and range of outputs became the primary factors that drew them in.

This reframes the problem. The issue is not simply why students rely heavily on AI, but rather what institutions can do to establish clear boundaries and frameworks for its appropriate use.

Several articles addressing this concern highlight the absence of well-defined standards and policies to guide students. While modern scholarship continues to emphasize individual authorship and original research, it must also evolve alongside the inevitable integration of AI. The dominant concern now is that students who rely heavily on AI are not being assessed at a level that truly reflects their understanding. Many incorporate AI-generated concepts and ideas directly into their work, which undermines the traditional process of learning through trial and error. In such cases, students often grasp terminology rather than the underlying concepts.

A more effective approach to assessment, therefore, could involve shifting the focus back to the student’s reasoning. For instance, asking questions such as: Why did you choose this particular method? What alternatives were available? This would relocate the burden of critical thinking from the AI tool back to the student, encouraging deeper engagement with their own research process.

So, what can be the way forward? While it is both expected and necessary for students to understand the true essence of research and adhere to it ethically, it is equally important for institutions to acknowledge that AI is inevitable and will continue to penetrate academic spaces with increasing frequency. Rather than resisting this shift, the focus should be on developing clear policies and guidelines that not only reinforce the fundamental principles of how research ought to be conducted, but also equip students with an awareness of the limitations of AI. More importantly, institutions must guide students on how AI can be used as a tool to enhance their research, rather than allowing it to completely overtake the process.

In doing so, the goal should not be to eliminate AI from academia, but to integrate it in a manner that preserves critical thinking, originality, and intellectual accountability.

Image Credits: Screenshot from Instagram User @fragrance______

Rahul Kumar

[email protected]

Keep Reading

Delhi University’s push for a fourth year under FYUP has left chaos in its wake with missing infrastructure, mounting workload, and no exit in sight. Has the university confused rhetoric with reform in its rollout?

With a notification dated July 31, 2025, Delhi University formally enforced the fourth year of the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme starting August 1. What should have been a thoughtful academic transition has arrived as a poorly managed surprise, marred by missing infrastructure, insufficient faculty, and an undefined syllabus. For over a year, Vice Chancellor Yogesh Singh has endorsed FYUP as a transformative, student-centric reform aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. But students and teachers alike reveal a rushed, unclear rollout, exposing the lack of structure and support that has left students in the crossfire.

According to the notification, the Executive Council met on July 12, 2025, to deliberate on the implementation of the fourth year, recommending that colleges operate from 8 AM to 8 PM to optimise resource usage. While students may choose from a basket of courses, actual availability depends on faculty norms. Faculty deployment will follow existing rules, with guest faculty hired if needed. Though extra staff workload is acknowledged, no clear compensation is outlined. The Council stressed that only experienced, regular faculty should teach the fourth year. Citing UGC Clause 15, the notification reiterates that full-time teachers must work 40 hours a week over 30 weeks annually, including five hours daily on campus and two hours for mentoring, with 16 teaching hours weekly for Assistant Professors and 14 for senior ranks.

Dr. Mithuraaj Dhusiya, an elected member of the Executive Council, highlights the serious concerns raised by DU’s latest notification:

“Directing colleges to adopt 8 AM to 8 PM daily classes is extremely dangerous from the safety perspective of students and teachers. Further, it just shows that DU is not prepared for the 4th year on both counts: infrastructure and manpower. It also insults newly appointed teachers by implying that only senior teachers can teach the 4th year. Teaching is based on areas of specialisation, not age.”

The last-minute advisory, released a day before the Fourth Year began, raises concerns about the university’s planning process. Abha Dev Habib, Secretary of the Democratic Teachers’ Front and Associate Professor at Miranda House, points to glaring gaps and questions the impossible timelines handed to colleges:

“Does the University know that teaching distribution and timetables have to be made during vacation itself if classes have to start from day one? New courses have been introduced at the undergraduate level without any workshops or preparatory training for teachers. While some colleges may be able to manage depending on their faculty’s specialisations, the University has made no systematic effort to ensure a smooth rollout.”

Beyond academics, the policy has drawn sharp criticism from faculty for its regressive undertones. Rudrashish Chakraborty, Associate Professor at Kirori Mal College and DUTA Executive member, cautions about serious institutional risks:

“The 8 AM–8 PM schedule now has official sanction, pushing a draconian, anti-teacher, and anti-student timetable, especially in colleges lacking basic space. There is also no clarity on how this will affect evening colleges; will they function from 8 PM to 8 AM, or will they be dismantled entirely? The advisory also formalises the exclusion of research supervision from regular workload, paving the way for the overburdening Draft Regulation 2025. The requirement of two hours daily for mentoring 15 students per teacher attempts to quantify meaningful engagement and defeats its purpose. Reserving 4th-year teaching for senior faculty creates a divisive hierarchy. And with many Delhi government-funded colleges still awaiting appointments, ad hoc teachers are now cut out entirely. This not only adds insult to injury but also makes the actual conduct of the fourth year logistically difficult.”

In the end, the most pressing concern remains the lack of choice. With Delhi University’s August 1 deadline behind us, the Four-Year Undergraduate Programme has effectively become a one-way tunnel. Students who may have legitimate academic, financial, or personal reasons to opt out are now left with no transparent pathway to do so. This move erodes student autonomy but also betrays the very spirit of flexibility and choice that the National Education Policy claimed to uphold. What was promised as reform has curdled into rigidity, trapping students in a system that denies their agency. It begs the question, can a system that suppresses dissent and eliminates choice truly claim to educate, let alone empower?

Featured Image Credits: Siva For DU Beat

Neeraja Unnikrishnan
[email protected]

Keep Reading