At present, students move through degrees assuming they must eventually engage in both roles, even though these activities demand entirely different skills. This fusion produces neither world-class teachers nor cutting-edge researchers. A more rational and future-ready approach is to formally divide the higher education system into two exclusive domains, a teaching pathway and a research pathway, beginning immediately after Class 12. Such a structural reform would allow students to cultivate deep expertise in one domain rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all system.
The teaching pathway would prepare students for careers in schools and colleges through continuous pedagogical training, classroom management, communication, curriculum design, and child psychology. At present, teaching competence is often treated as an add-on rather than a central professional skill. A dedicated teaching track would correct this weakness. Students entering at age 17 could complete a rigorous, multi-stage programme focused entirely on learning how to teach effectively, with assessments based on real classrooms rather than abstract coursework. This would create a generation of teachers who are trained from the beginning to teach, rather than academics who are expected to teach simply because they hold advanced degrees.
The second pathway, the research pathway, would focus solely on discovery, problem-solving, and innovation. Instead of forcing all research students into the traditional sequence of undergraduate degree, postgraduate degree, and then PhD thesis, the research track would begin immediately after Class 12 for those with strong analytical abilities. Early exposure to scientific thinking, design principles, coding, experimentation, fieldwork, and data analysis would create far more capable researchers by the time they enter advanced training. Crucially, this pathway should discard mandatory thesis writing and replace it with the development of a product, a validated prototype, a policy framework, or a tested innovation. The written component would exist only as a technical report documenting methodology, validation, and results.
Such a reform directly addresses a major weakness in today’s doctoral system: the thesis has become a ritual rather than a tool for advancing society. Many dissertations have limited readership and negligible practical impact. They consume years of labour without contributing to technology, governance, or public welfare. By contrast, a system built around real outputs would train researchers to design solutions aligned with societal needs, renewable energy devices, low-cost medical innovations, environmental restoration models, AI tools for public services, or evidence-based policy designs. These outputs can be evaluated objectively, scaled, and deployed outside academia.
Implementing dual pathways after Class 12 would also reduce confusion among students. At present, many enter higher education without a clear sense of direction. They are pushed into general degrees that try to prepare them for everything but end up preparing them for nothing. A bifurcated system would allow students to align their training with their natural strengths, those inclined toward explanation, mentorship, and communication join the teaching track, while those inclined toward experimentation and inquiry join the research track. Mobility between tracks could remain open in the early years, but the pathways themselves would be distinct.
A rapid adoption of this reform would also support national development goals. Countries with strong innovation ecosystems deliberately separate teaching and research functions to prevent dilution of expertise. India and regions like Jammu and Kashmir could benefit significantly. A dedicated teaching corps would strengthen schools and colleges, while a specialised research corps would generate solutions for challenges such as climate vulnerability, environmental degradation, public health gaps, and technological dependence.
Splitting higher education into teaching and research domains, beginning after Class 12, is not merely restructuring; it is realigning education with human capability. Replacing the thesis with product or policy innovation is the natural next step. A system that trains people deeply in one domain will always outperform a system that trains everyone superficially in both. This may be the most decisive reform needed to revive both teaching quality and research relevance.