BM Education: India's global influence in higher education continues to rise
India's higher education sector is undergoing a profound transformation, with statistical evidence pointing toward consistent and inclusive growth across the country. From a modest start in 1947, when the nation had only 17 universities and 636 colleges catering to just 2.38 lakh students, India now boasts a vibrant academic landscape. According to the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2021-22, the country has 1,168 universities, 45,473 colleges, and 12,002 stand-alone institutions. State Public Universities (SPUs), in particular, have emerged as pivotal players, accounting for 81% of student enrollment and catering to over 3.25 crore students.According to education experts, this remarkable expansion is reflected in India's global academic standing as well. Over the past decade, the country witnessed a staggering 318% increase in its representation in international higher education rankings—the highest among G20 nations. The release of NITI Aayog's recent report, Expanding Quality Higher Education through States and State Public Universities, underscores the vital role SPUs play in democratising education, especially in underserved and remote regions.'India's Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) surged from a mere 0.4% in 1950-51 to 28.4% in 2021-22—a 71-fold increase. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 aims to take this further, targeting a GER of 50% by 2035. Enrollment across disadvantaged groups has also seen commendable growth. Between 2011 and 2022, enrollment among OBCs rose by 80.9%, SCs by 76.3%, and STs by 106.8%. Muslim student enrollment increased by 60.6%, while other minorities saw a 53.2% rise.Enrollment of students with disabilities in SPUs grew by 6.6% over the same period',said an education department official.SPUs' teaching departments and constituent units saw a rise in enrollment from 24.5 lakh in 2011-12 to nearly 29.8 lakh in 2021-22, marking a 21.8% decadal increase. Meanwhile, State Private Universities experienced explosive growth, with enrollment skyrocketing by 497%—from 2.7 lakh in 2011-12 to 16.2 lakh in 2021-22. Central Universities reported a more modest growth of 26.4% over the same period.Gender inclusivity has also improved significantly. India's Gender Parity Index (GPI) in higher education rose from 0.87 in 2011-12 to 1.01 in 2021-22, indicating that female enrollment now slightly exceeds that of males—an encouraging step toward gender-balanced education, according to the data from the education ministry.In terms of faculty, India has around 16 lakh teachers in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Lecturers and Assistant Professors form the largest share at 68%, followed by Associate Professors (10%), Professors (9.5%), and other categories such as Demonstrators, Temporary, and Visiting Faculty.India's global academic impact is further highlighted by its rising contribution to research. The country's share in global research publications grew from 3.5% in 2017 to 5.2% in 2024. According to the NIRF 2024 rankings, the IITs collectively account for 24% of the total publications, followed closely by Private Deemed Universities, which contribute 23.5%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
OSHEC without a permanent vice-chairperson for around a year
Bhubaneswar: The Odisha State Higher Education Council (OSHEC) has not had a permanent vice-chairperson for nearly a year. Also, the term of the council's 15 members ended this year. The council became headless after the tenure of OSHEC vice-chairman Asoka Kumar Das ended in Aug last year. He received an extension before leaving office. To manage the affairs, higher education secretary Aravind Agrawal is in-charge of the council. The council's main mandate is to develop policies, educational reform-based schemes, and advise the state govt on achieving excellence and inclusivity in the higher education process and student outcomes, according to the OSHEC Act. The council also takes up a coordinating role with state universities for novel higher educational reform initiatives, depending on the need. It initiates and executes state-specific quality initiatives and brings together vice-chancellors and other eminent academicians on one platform to come up with common innovative solutions on issues. Siba Prasad Adhikary, who was in the search committee for selection of the first vice-chairperson of the council, said there should not be any delay in the appointment of the vice chairperson and members. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Citing the OSHEC Act, 2017, he said vacancies shall be filled afresh, and the govt should initiate the process of filling any vacancy due to arise before a period of six months from the date of arising of such vacancy. Jayanta Mohapatra, former vice-chancellor of Berhampur University, said the council has a big role in preparing a common syllabus for undergraduate courses, conducting academic audits, monitoring research works, and scrutinising Mukhyamantri Research Innovation (MRI). "Its role is important in the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) and other programmes in higher education institutions. It cannot become a defunct body. The vice-chairman of the council is a key figure who oversees the functioning of the council and takes important decisions related to the development of higher education in the state. Steps should be taken to address this issue," he added. Higher education secretary Aravind Agrawal could not be contacted for a reaction on the issue despite repeated attempts.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Delhi govt to implement uniform admission age of six years for class 1 from 2026-27; seeks public suggestions
New Delhi: The Delhi government has announced the implementation of a uniform minimum age of six years for admission to class 1 and a restructuring of the foundational stage of school education in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, starting from the 2026-27 academic session. According to a circular issued by the Directorate of Education (DoE), the foundational stage will be reorganised to include three years of pre-primary education prior to Class 1. The move aims to align Delhi's school system with the 5+3+3+4 structure recommended under the NEP. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ductless Air Conditioners Are Selling Like Crazy [See Why] Keep Cool Click Here Undo The 5+3+3+4 structure introduced under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 replaces the earlier 10+2 system and reorganizes school education into four developmental stages: five years of the foundational stage, three years of the preparatory stage, three years of the middle stage and four years of the secondary stage. The circular stated that children will be admitted to nursery (also referred to as pre-school or 'Bal Vatika') at the age of three years, to lower KG (pre-school 2) at four years and to upper KG (pre-school 3) at five years. Live Events The admission to class 1, according to the circular, will be allowed only upon completion of six years of age from the academic year 2026-27 onwards. The nomenclature for pre-primary classes is flexible and may be revised as required, it said. The Directorate of Education further stated that all government, government-aided and recognised unaided private schools under its purview are expected to comply with the revised age criteria and foundational structure as per the new directives. In an effort to make the process participatory, the Directorate has invited suggestions and inputs from stakeholders, including parents, teachers, students, the school management, subject experts, professionals, scholars and members of the public, before July 10, the circular added.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
A critical look at UGC's recent regulations for Ph.D. guides, in the light of NEP 2020
Academic research in India is once again at a pivotal crossroads. In a recent directive, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has stipulated that research supervisors for Ph.D. candidates must belong to institutions with recognised postgraduate research centres. This move, intended to ensure quality control and institutional accountability, comes at a time when the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 is advocating the democratisation and decentralisation of research — starting right from undergraduate programmes. The apparent contradiction between these two directions raises fundamental questions about the future of research in India. Quality vs. accessibility On the surface, the UGC's intention seems well-founded. Research is a rigorous activity demanding access to institutional infrastructure, peer support, and ethical oversight. Restricting supervisors to PG research centres ensures that minimum academic standards are upheld. However, this measure inadvertently sidelines a vast cohort of capable researchers and teachers from UG colleges, who may possess strong academic credentials, extensive research experience, and proven track records but are now deemed ineligible solely due to institutional affiliation. The policy runs the risk of converting what should be an intellectually inclusive process into an exclusive club, centred around a few institutions with 'recognised' status. Is research potential a property of an institution or an individual? Individual merit This brings us to a crucial philosophical and pedagogical question: Should research supervision be institution-centric or individual-centric? There are several instances where professors in non-research PG colleges have published in high-impact journals, received fellowships, and mentored scholars informally with great success. By denying these individuals the ability to formally guide Ph.D. students, the system fails to recognise merit and performance outside bureaucratic boundaries. Ironically, NEP 2020 emphasises promoting research from the undergraduate level, allowing students to engage in high-level inquiry and innovation as early as the fourth year. How, then, do we reconcile this vision with a restrictive policy that limits who can guide future researchers? Repercussions The implications of this policy could be far-reaching. First, it may lead to overcrowding of researchers under a few supervisors in PG research centres, reducing the quality of mentorship. Second, it may demoralise qualified teachers in UG institutions who are eager to contribute to national knowledge production. Third, it creates a two-tiered system; those who are 'research-worthy' and those who are not, based not on talent but institutional status. Additionally, the assumption that only PG centres have the necessary infrastructure is increasingly outdated in the digital age. With open-access journals, virtual laboratories, collaborative tools, and global research networks, much of the academic work today transcends physical campuses. Need for balance A more nuanced framework is urgently needed: one that upholds academic quality while actively nurturing individual research talent. To begin with, merit-based accreditation should be introduced, allowing experienced faculty from non-PG research centres to independently apply to be Ph.D. guides based on academic credentials, such as publication records, citation indices, or leadership in funded research projects. In place of blanket bans on entire categories of institutions, regular institutional audits should be conducted to assess and certify research readiness in undergraduate colleges, ensuring that deserving institutions are not unfairly excluded. Additionally, collaborative mentorship models could be adopted, allowing for joint supervision where a researcher has a primary guide from a UG institution and a co-guide from a PG research centre, thereby encouraging mentorship diversity and inter-institutional learning. Policies must also be realigned with the NEP 2020's research-first vision, which calls for building research mentorship capacity across the academic spectrum — including UG colleges — instead of restricting it. Finally, investment in digital infrastructure is essential, enabling equitable access to research databases, tools, and collaborative platforms for all accredited institutions, thereby decentralising research power and making knowledge creation more inclusive. Research is not the privilege of a few but the responsibility of all in the academic ecosystem. UGC's commitment to quality is laudable, but it must not come at the cost of inclusivity and innovation. As India moves towards becoming a global knowledge hub, it is essential to ensure that the structures we build empower every capable mind, not just the ones housed in designated research centres. The strength of a nation's research culture lies not in institutional labels but in the intellectual spirit it chooses to nurture. The writer is a Professor and Head of the Department of English, M. J. College, Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
