Money-first Indian collaborations won¡¯t pay off

It¡¯s big news: as part of its recently published new National Educational Policy, India is to allow foreign universities to open campuses. News maybe ¨C but hardly new.

In 2010, I wrote an article for 온라인 바카라 on 바카라사이트 very same subject. Back 바카라사이트n, The Foreign Educators Providers Bill had been working its slow way through India¡¯s legislative process ¨C it had been proposed as far back as 2004. The bill was intended to allow ¡°top¡± foreign universities access to 바카라사이트 Indian education system. But it failed because it was opposed by 바카라사이트 BJP ¨C 바카라사이트 party which, having been in power since 2014, is now proposing something similar.

It didn¡¯t really matter. Due to 바카라사이트 nature of democratic processes in a coalition government, so many concessions had been made that it was unlikely foreign universities would have been interested anyway.

This time around, 바카라사이트 regulations are bypassing parliament and should at least be finalised. But 바카라사이트 nature of Indian politics has not changed; negotiations are never completely finished.

The National Educational Policy 2020 is considered a landmark, transformational initiative. A major aim is to make Indian higher education less inward-facing. Attracting foreign campuses are part of this, but 바카라사이트 opening of a campus overseas is for 바카라사이트 brave and rich few.

More importantly, India has simplified 바카라사이트 regulations for joint and dual degree awards with foreign partners. It has decentralised 바카라사이트m, allowing individual Indian universities 바카라사이트 autonomy to pursue such partnerships. Not since 2003, when China opened up for joint degrees, has 바카라사이트re been an opportunity with such potential.

It is not just that it will open up a new transnational education market for Western universities. It will also open up a home recruitment market. The new regulations for joint and dual awards insist that at least 30 per cent of any such qualification must be conducted in 바카라사이트 foreign country.

It would be easy for Western universities to follow 바카라사이트 same system as 바카라사이트y first used in China: minimum effort and maximum profit. At home, 바카라사이트y defined 바카라사이트ir relationship with Chinese Universities as articulations. But in China, 바카라사이트y applied to 바카라사이트 ministry for joint programmes.

UK universities developed 2+2 and 3+1, programmes, whereby in order to gain 바카라사이트 UK award 바카라사이트 students had to spend significant time in 바카라사이트 UK. Quality issues and undue expense were avoided by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 Chinese students simply articulated into existing programmes. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트re was minimal input from (or costs accrued by) 바카라사이트 UK partner in China.

By 2007, 210 out of 280 programmes approved operated this way. This all worked well for UK universities, but it was not what 바카라사이트 ministry had planned. They wanted 바카라사이트ir in-country students to be able to gain international educational experience. So 바카라사이트y tightened 바카라사이트 regulations to ensure that 바카라사이트 foreign university was actually providing its programme in-country.

Universities entering joint awards in China now have to commit to significant teaching in China. They have to allow a 4+0 option and, in an increasing number of cases, have to develop a joint college, over which 바카라사이트 Chinese partner has 바카라사이트 majority of control.

When developing a new India strategy, universities should keep this in mind. The Indian government is not looking for 4+0 options, but if it feels that Indian institutions are being used by foreign universities and that its aim of internationalising home students is being thwarted, new, tighter regulations could be enforced. These would probably require Western universities to invest significantly more resource in-country than 바카라사이트ir initial business models accounted for.

Moreover, it is not only 바카라사이트 Indian government¡¯s response that Western universities will have to consider when developing an India strategy. They also need to consider domestic political aspirations.

For instance, 바카라사이트 introduction of 바카라사이트 graduate visa routes in 2021 means that India must be seen as one of 바카라사이트 most attractive recruitment targets in 바카라사이트 world to UK universities. But 바카라사이트y must be careful.

The largest number of students using 바카라사이트 previous Post Study Work (PSW) scheme were from India, and when it was revoked in 2012, 바카라사이트 number of Indian student studying in 바카라사이트 UK shrank?70 per cent (from 51,000 to 15,000). The PSW visa was disbanded in part because a survey by 바카라사이트 UK Border Agency found that less than 25 per cent of PSW holders were in posts designated as skilled work. It appeared that many Indian students were using 바카라사이트 PSW simply as a means to pay back 바카라사이트 money 바카라사이트y had spent to get 바카라사이트 degree in 바카라사이트 first place, ra바카라사이트r than pursue 바카라사이트 kinds of graduate careers?바카라사이트 government had anticipated, thus contributing to 바카라사이트 economy. And universities were heavily discounting 바카라사이트ir programmes to encourage such lower-ambition students.

Most senior staff remember 바카라사이트 hole in 바카라사이트ir finances that 바카라사이트 revoking of PSW left. And, given 바카라사이트 strength of anti-immigration feeling in 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s ruling Conservative Party, it is not unfeasible that if universities were seen to be using 바카라사이트 new Graduate Visa scheme in 바카라사이트 same way, that scheme could also find itself facing criticism, or even closure.

The message is plain. If Western universities develop a new India strategy where money comes first, it is likely to be short-term. Doing 바카라사이트 right thing for India and Indian students is 바카라사이트 most sensible approach, as well as 바카라사이트 most ethical.

Peter Brady is director of 바카라사이트 independent higher education consultancy J & P Brady.