A war between the US and China has broken out for the next phase of technological dominance over the world. If India does not up its innovation game, we will once be relegated to being mere consumers of technology. Our best bet is our young talent in universities. But do they have an enabling educational environment, or is India on track to lose its historic demographic advantage?
In the contemporary landscape of higher education, India's private universities are being stifled by a web of outdated and restrictive regulatory constraints. These regulations, crafted decades ago, were designed in an era when the government sought to maintain strict oversight over private institutions and protect student interests from exploitation. However, as the higher education sector evolves rapidly, these very regulations have become roadblocks to innovation. It is time policymakers recognised the need to unshackle private universities, granting them the autonomy to innovate, respond to industry needs and provide students with the skills they require to navigate a fast-changing world.
A Web Of Regulatory Bodies
The first major hurdle facing private universities is the multiplicity of regulatory bodies. For instance, a BTech programme run by a university must adhere to the standards set by both the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the State Higher Education Department, each with its own set of requirements. This multiplicity of regulations leads to discrepancies. The result is a confusing framework that hampers the flexibility and adaptability of universities, preventing them from offering dynamic courses that meet the demands of today's rapidly evolving job market.
Accreditation is another critical area where the regulatory framework falls short. The lack of diverse accrediting bodies—the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) being the only one—limits universities' ability to differentiate themselves based on their unique strengths. The current accreditation process is heavily input-based, rather than focusing on the outcomes that matter most to students, such as learning experiences, graduate employability, and industry-relevant skills.
A significant area of concern is the strict faculty qualification and recruitment norms. While maintaining academic standards is important, these regulations leave little room for flexibility in hiring. The “Professor of Practice” model allows some industry professionals to teach, but their number is capped at 20%, severely limiting the ability of universities to bring in real-world expertise. Allowing the institution to decide on faculty qualifications—rather than imposing rigid academic criteria—would enable universities to create a teaching staff that is both academically accomplished and industry-savvy.
Land Constraints
Similarly, land and infrastructure norms present a barrier. Universities must meet specific land size and infrastructure requirements, many of which are not only financially burdensome but also impractical in urban areas, where top-tier faculty and their families prefer to live in good neighbourhoods with quality schools. The high costs associated with acquiring land in such areas often limit the ability of universities to invest in improving academic quality and research.
Private universities are constrained when it comes to student intake approvals too. Regulatory bodies determine how many students can be admitted to a programme, limiting the ability of institutions to expand based on demand. Universities should be free to set intake numbers based on market realities.
Further stifling innovation are regulations around off-campus and distance education programmes. Universities wishing to offer courses outside their main campuses or in alternative formats face additional regulatory hurdles, limiting their ability to cater to diverse student needs. For example, entrepreneurial programmes could be effectively taught on rented campuses in urban hubs like Gurugram rather than being restricted to rural or suburban areas. The geographical constraints imposed on distance education programmes also limit universities' ability to reach out to a larger, more diverse pool of students.
Administrative Pressures
The continuous monitoring and reporting requirements from various regulatory bodies add a layer of administrative burden too. Universities are compelled to submit data to multiple entities, including the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) and state governments, diverting valuable resources away from educational priorities.
Other regulations, such as rigid faculty hiring and promotion norms, fail to account for important factors like teaching quality, feedback from students, and real-world impact. These static criteria, which are biased towards publications and PhD supervision, should be supplemented with more dynamic performance measures, allowing universities to reward faculty members who are innovative and impactful in the classroom.
The current framework for university rankings also imposes a one-size-fits-all approach. Rankings are often based on rigid metrics that fail to recognise the diversity of university models. For example, a teaching-focused university, which might prioritise excellent pedagogy over research, is disadvantaged in rankings that prioritise the latter. This leads to a bias against universities that do not fit the traditional research-centric mould, further discouraging innovation in the higher education sector.
Bias Against Private Universities
Finally, there is a noticeable bias against private universities, especially in terms of funding and access to resources. Government schemes like the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) are often biased towards public institutions, leaving private universities at a disadvantage. A level playing field in terms of access to funding and resources is crucial for fostering a competitive and innovative higher education ecosystem.
To foster the kind of disruptive innovation that India desperately needs, it is imperative that policymakers rethink the regulatory framework governing private universities. The current system, which was conceived in a bygone era, is ill-suited to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Now, more than ever, India's private universities need the freedom to evolve and lead the way in shaping the future.
(Suresh Prabhu is a former cabinet minister in the Government of India and Shobhit Mathur is the Vice-Chancellor of Rishihood University.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
