The UGC has notified a draft regulation for granting equivalence to higher education qualifications awarded by foreign universities. So far, this task has been performed by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) since its inception in 1925.
AIU is naturally vexed about the initiative and took the matter to its governing council and general body specially convened to deliberate the UGC’s decision and its implications on foreign qualification holders and Indian higher education institutions. Both these bodies are represented by the Vice Chancellors of Central, state, private and deemed universities and the Directors of Institutions of National Importance. Expressing their trepidation, they appealed to the Ministry of Education to intervene and let the AIU continue to do the job.
The issues involved are much more complex than restoring the morsel back to the mouth from which it was getting snatched. Equivalence in India is a euphemism for the globally accepted term of recognition of qualifications awarded by or pursued in foreign higher education institutions.
The task assumes importance in view of growing internationalisation leading to the mobility of students transnationally. Recognition of qualifications facilitates students and higher educational institutions to determine eligibility for admission of students coming from an extremely diverse system of higher education.
Determining eligibility of cross-border qualifications for admissions and jobs has been so important that UNESCO worked hard to evolve various regional conventions and has now put in place a global convention. Coming on the heels of the implementation of UNESCO’s global convention for recognition of higher education qualifications, it was natural to expect that the UGC’s regulation would reflect contemporary challenges and practices of determining equivalence of higher education qualification.
Strangely, the new regulation betrays ignorance of global practices as well as the global convention of UNESCO. It is almost a replica of the policies, procedures, methodology, and conditionalities that AIU presently follows and has put up in the public domain. Wherever the UGC regulation differs, it poses problems and difficulties in the speedy recognition of higher education qualifications.
The draft regulation provides that the UGC would grant equivalence to qualifications awarded by foreign higher education institutions recognised in their home country and only to such students who complete their programmes on a regular basis and in-person mode. Further, the minimum prescribed duration or credit requirements of the programme match the corresponding qualifications in India. These are exactly what AIU ensures while according equivalence.
UGC’s regulation insists that foreign qualifications must have entry-level requirements for admission similar to those of the corresponding programme in India. AIU, on the other hand, provides that the eligibility qualification for admission should be the same as in India. The two articulations may appear slightly different, but may have serious implications. For example, an undergraduate programme, say in Engineering, requires that students must have completed 12 years of schooling. The entry-level requirements for admission, on the other hand, require students to secure a minimum cut-off score in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE).
Most countries do not require students to undergo a JEE kind of entrance test and admit students on the basis of their holistic performance, potential, and ability to pursue the intended qualification. Will qualifications obtained from higher education institutions in such countries be eligible for equivalence?
UGC appears aware of the difficulties and provides that the similarity of the entry-level requirements would be determined by its Standing Committee. Sadly, its standing committees are not known for making decisions expeditiously.
Equivalence of qualifications demands immediate action. Acting speedily but without being in haste and delivering equivalence in time is the essence of the equivalence process for being effective and efficient. A little delay in the decision could deprive a student of a well-deserved opportunity, and the standing committees are known to be an expeditious process.
The draft regulation provides for developing an online portal to grant equivalence within fifteen days. AIU already has the portal up and running, and takes no more than two weeks to grant equivalence to eligible applicants.
UGC promises to maintain a resource on the minimum curricular requirements as per standards established in India and that the foreign higher education qualifications would be expected to meet those standards in order to qualify for equivalence. It would be naive to expect that all countries would design and benchmark their curricula, pedagogy, courses, examinations and evaluations with those of India.
Equivalence of foreign qualifications, in fact, requires a thorough understanding of the foreign higher education institutions and their qualifications. To this end, the qualification recognition agency must also maintain a comprehensive resource on foreign qualifications. It must also have a ready-to-use matrix to match and evaluate qualifications.
Additionally, the recognition of qualification entails quite a high degree of reciprocity with higher education institutions of different countries. This entails regular and continuous communication with a wide variety of stakeholders.
Recognition of qualification is not limited to only awarding equivalence to foreign qualifications. The agency in charge of discharging this function must proactively work to make the world become familiar with the Indian higher education systems and qualifications. It must also work to make the international higher education community confident that the Indian higher education system is at least as robust as its own.
Seen from this perspective, AIU has been doing reasonably well. It has been publishing handbooks of Indian universities regularly. This provides details of programmes of studies and faculty members of all its member universities. Notably, most universities in the country are already its members. It has become the most dependable treatise on the Indian higher education system and qualification. It is relied heavily upon by the International Association of Universities (IAU), the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) and many of their likes.
UGC, being a regulatory body, has found it difficult to periodically publish an updated list of universities and colleges that are recognised under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the UGC Act. An earlier effort in this direction had to be aborted for fear of litigation.
Speaking of global practices, the ENIC-NARIC (European Network of Information Centre and National Academic Recognition Information Centre) networks now facilitate academic recognition of qualifications across 55 countries. These work autonomously within the national and European framework.
UNESCO’s global convention prefers all member states to identify and designate similar centres in their national territory within the framework of their own academic sovereignty. They are, however, expected to work with speed, consistency and objectivity and are expected to accord national treatment.
Most higher education institutions in North America and Canada rely on credential assessments by the World Education Services (WES), a not-for-profit organisation. Barring a few exceptions, most countries avoid being involved directly in the decisions involving the recognition of qualifications, and rightly so. Denial of equivalence could, at times, become an irritant in international relations, which a nation must avoid. It is, thus, in the larger national interest that such decisions are taken by an agency that is at an arm’s length from the government, but is still bound by the broad policy framework. An agency that uses the Government of India logo on its letterhead may not be appropriate.
Furqan Qamar is the former Secretary General of the Association of Indian Universities. Views
expressed are personal.