The outreach to foreign varsities

UGC regulation can raise India’s higher education standards if implemented in the right spirit

The University Grants Commission (UGC) released the much-awaited regulation for setting up and operating campuses of Foreign Higher Educational Institutions (FHEI) in India a few days ago. It must be said the regulation is enabling and liberal. It follows the recommendations of the New Education Policy and opens up new opportunities for collaboration. That it seeks to challenge the existing systems is an opportunity as well as a concern.

The University Grants Commission (UGC) (Representative Photo)

The regulation allows FHEIs to conduct UG/PG/doctoral/postdoctoral studies, award degrees, diplomas, and certificates in all disciplines, and provide special dispensation in operation and governance. A great move indeed if these FHIEs would be within 500 of overall/subject-wise global rankings. Considering there are at least 20 major reputed ranking agencies in the world and that many globally reputed institutions do not even participate in many of them for a variety of reasons, how will global rankings be authenticated? Together with the 2022 regulation on academic collaboration between Indian and FHEIs to offer twinning, joint degree and dual degree programmes, this promises a heady mix for some exciting times.

The regulation allows a prospective FHEI to enter into a joint venture with Indian HEI(s) or Indian companies. While we understand that joint ventures are business arrangements where two or more parties agree to pool their resources to accomplish a specific task, why does the regulation insist that an FHEI should have an independent campus with physical, academic and research infrastructure and facilities to conduct its academic and research programmes? Seriously, will any FHEI invest in land and resources to be in India? A collaborative campus model with sharing of resources with an existing Indian campus would be more viable.

Now for the “company” part. Such a company, registered under section 8 for objects specified, must apply its profits, if any, or other income, in promoting only the stated objects and cannot make payment of any dividend to its members. Further, under section 10 of the Indian Trust Act, a foreigner or a NRI cannot be a trustee of an Indian trust. Read with another provision of the regulation that allows cross-border movement of funds and maintenance of foreign currency accounts, mode of payments, remittance, repatriation, and sale proceeds, if any, in accordance with the provisions of the FEMA Act, 1999, there seems to be something amiss. If there are funds that can be repatriated, does it mean the FHEIs could generate profits? Does it mean education is “for profit” now?

The regulation hopes India will be an attractive global study destination in the future. That, of course, would depend on which FHEIs set up base and with what programmes, and whether they would source faculty locally or internationally, and what metrics they use for student admissions. Traditionally, accreditation is the mode of quality check in India and most countries. The regulation stipulates that the FHEI undergoes a “quality assurance” audit and submits a report to the UGC. Any assurance is a guarantee on deliverables and surmises that the customer could seek redressal in a court of law if a deliverable is not met. Further, the FHEI must also ensure that the quality of education in its Indian campus is at par with that of the main campus in the country of origin. Though very noble, how will the regulatory mechanism seek compliance?

It is indeed progressive that the regulation allows a FHEI to decide its fee structure. While its counterparts in India need to satisfy the whims of a fee fixation committee, why should there be special treatment for an FHEI? Even as FEMA is the guide, non-quantifiable sums that accrue can always be fudged. Mandating an academic credit-based fee structure would have been a more credible option.

The condition that the programmes offered shall not be allowed in online and ODL mode is most restrictive. MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, all at the top of global rankings, have excellent online programmes. Why deny them to our students, especially when UGC has relaxed several Open and Distance Learning (ODL) norms in recent times?

Two important parameters to figure in the world ranking of universities are internationalisation and research. Internationalisation is when foreign students and faculty thrive on Indian campuses. An eminent faculty would look to either make more money or work for better research facilities or explore the possibility of interaction with the best in his/her domain, or be privy to industry consultancy that can lead to new products, processes, thereby adding patents and IPRs to his/her repertoire. None would venture out, except for a week’s visit at most, if the above are not perceived as available. How will a FHEI function then?

Complete autonomy in the appointment of faculty and staff is the most enabling and important part of the regulation. However, the best faculty from our existing institutions migrating to the FHEIs could be the flip side of this provision. Probably, a new normal would set in eventually. If that normal enhances quality within our institutions, it must be welcomed.

A level playing field is the norm on which democracies thrive. It is on which quality is measured. Inasmuch as saying that the regulation is enabling, does it change the rules of the game for the existing institutions? Our institutions have to adhere to fee committee recommendations, state or central norms for admissions, and so on. Why not extend complete autonomy in choosing faculty, fixing fees and setting admission rules to our institutions also? After all, they are all expected to compete on the same metrics of the global ranking agencies!

Any experiment will have its share of critics. If the regulation enables Indian students to obtain quality education with foreign qualifications to boot at a fractional cost, as opposed to studying in those institutions in their parent countries, it is welcome. That said, if this influences students who would otherwise join first-tier institutions like the IITs to join the new campuses, then it is a concern. The country needs massive investment in education so the quality bar is raised manifold. Research facilities need quantum growth. State funding being what it is, the doors must be opened to both foreign funding and adopting successful systems.

SS Mantha is former chairman, AICTE and Ashok Thakur is former secretary, education, government of India. The views expressed are personal