India’s internationalisation drive must be realistic and pragmatic

The Indian government’s plans to boost internationalisation in its higher education sector, set out in its 2020 National Education Plan (NEP), include aspirations to attract branch campuses of prestigious overseas universities.

Many of those universities are based in the UK, of course, and senior staff from about 30 of them, myself included, recently went on a week-long UK higher education mission to India, under the leadership of Sir Steve Smith, the government’s international education champion, to assess the opportunities.

The Home Office crackdown on dependants aside, it is little wonder that UK universities are being encouraged to build more partnerships that allow Indian students to take UK degrees at home. The latest data shows that UK in-country provision in India reaches just over 12,000 students – compared with more than 10 times that number, nearly 122,000, who travel from India to the UK for their degrees. The twin issues of brain drain and carbon emissions alone justify a rebalancing, and it is also the case that many Indians cannot travel to the UK for family, work or financial reasons.

As well as the NEP, the recent India-UK memorandum of understanding on the mutual recognition of qualifications is inducement to accelerated internationalisation of India’s higher education sector, from international branch campuses in GIFT City (Gujarat International Finance Tec City, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad) to joint, dual and twinning arrangements underpinned by new regulations from India’s University Grants Commission (UGC).

But while there is now undoubted impetus behind India’s internationalisation efforts, there remain a number of questions and challenges to making this a reality.

First, while two Australian universities, Deakin and Wollongong, are currently leading the way in GIFT City, international branch campuses might not generate the greater part of transnational (TNE) provision from the UK in the short to medium term given the levels of investment and risk involved.

Second, a minimum period of study abroad is required as part of the new twinning, dual and joint arrangements. While there are obvious internationalisation drivers behind this, it currently precludes programmes spent entirely in India – again, meaning that those for whom it is difficult or impossible to go abroad lose out on the opportunity of a recognised international degree.

Third, there is continuing disquiet in the UK sector over the requirement that only those universities among the world’s top 1,000 (recently upped from the even more restrictive top 500) are eligible to partner with Indian universities under the UGC schemes. It is argued that this precludes smaller and more specialised institutions that might be world-leading in specific disciplines, and might have excellent counterparts in India, but which do not feature high enough in the overall rankings.

Finally, the Indian regulatory focus on mode of study as a key parameter for decisions of equivalence means that online degrees from outside India continue to be unrecognised. It is encouraging that the Association of Indian Universities and UK ENIC, the UK national information centre for the recognition of international qualifications, are currently discussing this on a case-by-case basis, with a commitment to consult on their findings.

Addressing these outstanding issues will enable faster and more effective deployment of the different forms of transnational provision to help to meet projected demand.

As always, international collaboration for mutual benefit will be the way forward. India’s own distance provision in higher education is significant and growing, with more than 10 per cent of its 41 million students on distance programmes; and the UGC has recently allowed more Indian universities to provide fully online degrees to meet burgeoning demand. Indeed, expansion of digital provision is vital if India is to meet its goal of increasing enrolment from less than 30 per cent of the university-age population now to 50 per cent by 2035, by which time the size of that population will have more than doubled.

Around the world, there is growing experience of delivering successful, quality-assured online higher education. The University of London has been engaged in distance learning since the mid-19th century and has for many years been the UK’s largest provider of transnational higher education by distance, flexible or distributed learning – currently, we have 45,000 students in more than 190 countries.

During the recent mission to India, we were pleased to share our approach to quality and standards in online delivery. These include applying the same assurance framework as that used on campus; deploying effective learning design to optimise student experience and outcomes; using new technology to enhance student engagement and well-being; embedding careers and employability in programme provision; and leveraging student voice for continuous improvement.

Building on our substantial global experience, we have worked through our Centre for Online and Distance Education with ministries, regulators and institutions around the world to exchange best practice in areas such pedagogy, learning design and student engagement. We are eager to engage with partners and stakeholders in India and the UK to help to turbocharge the Indian government’s drive towards internationalisation. But all parties need to approach the discussions from a pragmatic sense of what is institutionally realistic and what is likely to best meet India’s enormous, varied and rapidly rising demand for quality higher education.

Mike Winter is director of international affairs at the University of London.